LOS ANGELES — In a dispute between two insurers over the duty to indemnify a default judgment in a construction defects case against an insured, one insurer argues to a California appeals court in a May 25 brief that the other cannot prevail against it in a direct action because the default judgment is void and not covered (The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania v. American Safety Indemnity Co., No. B283684, Calif. App., 2nd Dist., Div. 8).
WILMINGTON, Del. — An insured on June 15 sued its excess insurer in Delaware Superior Court, seeking coverage for a class action challenging the constitutionality of its subsidiary’s private probationary services (Providence Service Corporation v. Illinois Union Insurance Company, No. 18C-06-114, Del. Super.).
SANTA ANA, Calif. — A commercial general liability insurer on May 30 asked the Fourth District California Court of Appeal to reverse a lower court’s finding that penalties for the crime of secretly recording confidential communications under California Penal Code Section 632 can be shifted onto an insurer, arguing that the lower court’s ruling violates public policy (Nautilus Insurance Company v. Monique Mingione, No. G055914, Calif. App., 4th Dist., Div. 3).
NEW YORK — A life insurer argues in its June 4 reply brief that a New York federal court should certify for interlocutory appeal a ruling forcing a $50 million Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act lawsuit against a reinsurance executive and others to be arbitrated (Bankers Conseco Life Insurance Co., et al. v. Moshe M. Feuer, et al., No. 16-7646, S.D. N.Y.).
COLUMBIA, S.C. — In a South Carolina federal court dispute involving a bank sued for its role as trustee of a reinsurance trust for an insolvent insurer, an insurer in a June 7 filing opposes the bank’s motion to compel the identity and production of documents related to damages (Accident Insurance Company Inc. v. U.S. Bank National Association, et al., No. 16-2621, D. S.C.).
HELENA, Mont.— An insured who sought coverage for injuries incurred in a vehicle accident and an insurer recently submitted arguments to the Montana Supreme Court, disputing whether a trial court’s decision granting summary judgment for the insurer and finding that underinsured motorist coverage under the policy was $2,500 should be affirmed (Jamie Cramer v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, DA 17-0658, Mont. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals heard oral arguments on May 15 in a case in which a hotel company contends that an indoor air exclusion provision in an insurance policy is ambiguous when it is applied to the third-party carbon monoxide poisoning claims for which it seeks coverage (Siloam Springs Hotel LLC v. Century Surety Company, No. 17-6208, 10th Cir.).
NEW ORLEANS — An insurer recently asked the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse a lower federal court’s finding that it has a duty to defend against an underlying lawsuit alleging that an insured failed to timely negotiate a commercial lease agreement (2200 West Alabama Inc. v. Western World Insurance Co., 17-20640, 5th Cir.).
ST. LOUIS — An insurer recently asked the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse a lower federal court’s ruling that a conference center is entitled to coverage as an additional insured, arguing that a minor’s injuries from a zip-lining accident did not arise out any portion of the premises the conference center leased to the insured (Great American Alliance Insurance Co. v. Windermere Baptist Conference Center Inc., et al., 17-3635, 8th Cir.).
LOS ANGELES — A landscape company says in its June 10 reply brief to a California federal court that service of suit was defective regarding a reinsurer’s petition seeking confirmation of a $82,130.44 arbitration award (Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company Inc. v. O’Connell Landscape Maintenance Inc., No. 18-00683, C.D. Calif.).
BRIDGEPORT, Conn. — Opposing a motion to dismiss, an insurer argues in a May 25 brief that a Connecticut federal court has personal jurisdiction over its breach of contract case against reinsurers regarding an asbestos claims settlement because the risk is located in the state (Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., et al., No. 18-00088, D. Conn.).
RICHMOND, Va. — A North Carolina woman is asking the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse a lower court’s ruling regarding her disability insurance coverage claim because benefit increases that she purchased on her policy were wrongly retracted when the insurer initially denied her claim and then later elected to pay benefits to a retroactive date (Jessica Slice-Sadler v. Principal Life Insurance Company, No. 17-2249, 4th Cir.).
MIAMI — A Florida appeals court is being asked to decide whether a mechanic driving a vehicle with an insured in the passenger seat constitutes an auto business operation triggering an insurance policy exclusion (Luis Matamoros v. Infinity Auto Insurance Co., No. 3D17-0505, Fla. App., 3rd Dist.).
ST. LOUIS — An insurer and the mother of a deceased daughter filed competing briefs with a Missouri appellate court recently over whether underinsured motors coverage covered the decedent or whether a provision excluding vehicle owners precluded such coverage (Leslie Seaton v. Shelter Mutual Insurance Co., No. ED105895, Mo. App., Eastern Dist.).
SYRACUSE, N.Y. — A reinsurer and an insurer filed trial briefs June 5 with a New York federal court in a dispute over whether the reinsurer is obligated to pay $3.2 million in reinsurance proceeds for the insurer’s defense expenses from an asbestos claims settlement (Utica Mutual Insurance Co. v. Munich Reinsurance America Inc., Nos. 12-00196 & 13-00743, N.D. N.Y.).
LOS ANGELES — In a dispute seeking confirmation of a $82,130.44 arbitration award, a reinsurer argues in a June 4 motion in California federal court that a landscape company’s motion to dismiss is “procedurally and substantively improper” (Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company Inc. v. O’Connell Landscape Maintenance Inc., No. 18-00683, C.D. Calif.).
NEW YORK — On May 21, a reinsurance executive opposed a life insurer’s request to a New York federal court to certify for interlocutory appeal a ruling forcing a $50 million Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act lawsuit to be arbitrated (Bankers Conseco Life Insurance Co., et al. v. Moshe M. Feuer, et al., No. 16-7646, S.D. N.Y.).
TRENTON, N.J. — In a lawsuit alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), a mortgage company, insurer and insurance broker argue in May 14 reply briefs in New Jersey federal court that homeowners failed to allege a scheme on lender-placed insurance (LPI) involving the use of kickbacks, including reinsurance premiums (Edward Leo v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC of Delaware, et al., No. 17-05839, D. N.J.).
RICHMOND, Va. — An insurer whose insureds assigned their rights to a man injured in an accident was required to inquire into the injured man’s mental competence before trying to reach a settlement, the injured man’s guardian ad litem (GAL) argues in a recent reply brief (Marion Fowler, Esq. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, No. 17-2278, 4th Cir.).
DENVER — A federal judge erred in holding that the Federal Crop Insurance Act (FCIA) required that a division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) immediately implement a yield crop exclusion “without regard to the actuarial soundness of the crop insurance program,” the government says in a March 28 reply brief to the 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (Glenn Ausmus, et al. v. Sonny Perdue, et al., No. 17-1442, 10th Cir.).