AUSTIN, Texas — An insurer ignored Texas law and now asks a court to correct that mistake and create a situation where insurers can abandon insureds based on the smallest suspicion of fraud, leaving the insureds in a nearly impossible position, respondents tell the Texas Supreme Court in an Oct. 28 brief (Loya Insurance Co. v. Osbalto Hurtado Avalos, et al., No. 18-0837, Texas Sup.).
MINNEAPOLIS — Citing a multimillion dollar coverage dispute of more than five years with its primary insurer over its settlement with a group of financial institutions (FIs) over a 2013 data breach, Target Corp. filed breach of contract claims against the insurer in Minnesota federal court on Nov. 15, seeking coverage declarations and damages (Target Corp. v. ACE American Insurance Co., et al., No. 0:19-cv-02916, D. Minn.).
ST. LOUIS — Insureds notified a federal court in Missouri on Nov. 15 that they will ask the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to review a magistrate judge’s dismissal of their claims for breach of contract and vexatious refusal to pay brought against a directors and officers liability insurer (Verto Medical Solutions, LLC, et al. v. Allied World Specialty Insurance Company, No. 19-01532, E.D. Mo., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190779).
SAN FRANCISCO — An appellant recently asked a California appeals court to reverse a lower court’s ruling that stayed his declaratory judgment lawsuit disputing the validity of a professional liability insurer’s subrogation claim against his family trust, arguing that the stay “has no legal basis” (John Berman v. Minnesota Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company, No. A155394, Calif. App., 1st Dist., Div. 3).
KANSAS CITY, Mo. — The receiver for an insolvent insurer argues in an Oct. 15 brief to a Missouri appeals court that a trial judge was correct in denying motions filed after the insurer’s estate was closed because the judge had no jurisdiction to decide the matter (Arthur A. Blumeyer III v. Chlora Lindley-Myers, et al., No. WD82921, Mo. App., Western Dist.).
RICHMOND, Va. — Defendants in Oct. 21 informal briefs request that the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals reverse a recommendation to deny summary judgment in part on a special deputy receiver’s claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act alleging a scheme to defraud a multiple-employer self-insured health plan with fraudulent letters of credit (LOCs) (Michael J. FitzGibbons, et al. v. De’Shaun Williams, et al., No. 19-2049, 4th Cir.).
NEW YORK — An investment bank and a financial services company argue in a Nov. 18 reply brief to a New York federal court that despite 18 months and the benefit of discovery, a runoff insurer fails to allege that two valuation reports prepared by them “substantially assisted” an alleged fraud or caused damage to the runoff insurer in the investment of $320 million in a failed Ponzi scheme (In re Platinum-Beechwood Litigation, No. 18-6658, Senior Health Insurance Company of Pennsylvania v. Lincoln International LLC, et al., No. 19-07137, S.D. N.Y.).
DENVER — A precast concrete company is asking the 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse a district court’s order and find that its insurer wrongly denied the company’s claim related to an underlying complaint against the company in which the plaintiffs alleged construction defects on a building project (Rocky Mountain Prestress LLC v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, No. 19-1169, 10th Cir.).
SAN FRANCISCO — An errors and omissions liability insurer’s failure to settle a consumer class action lawsuit against its insured for violating provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Action (TCPA) amounts to a bad faith breach of contract, an assignee argues in a Nov. 5 complaint filed in California federal court (Ignacio Perez v. Indian Harbor Insurance Co., et al., No. 19-7288, N.D. Calif.).
PHILADELPHIA — Insured contractors and homeowners who are suing them in two underlying construction defects lawsuit filed two separate briefs in the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Oct. 26, refuting a commercial general liability insurer’s appeal of a federal court's ruling that it has a duty to defend against the underlying claims (Nautilus Insurance Company v. 200 Christian Street Partners LLC, et al., Nos. 19-1507 and 19-1506, 3rd Cir.).
AUSTIN, Texas — A reinsurer and an insolvent insurer, as debtors, ask a Texas federal bankruptcy court in a Nov. 12 brief to waive compliance requirements for $5 million in proceeds from a life insurance policy with the account where the proceeds are currently being held (In re: Capson Corp., et al., Nos. 19-10890, 19-10893 & 19-10894, W.D. Texas Bkcy.).
MIAMI — More than a year after an insured filed suit in Florida state court seeking coverage for water damage, an insurer on Nov. 11 filed a notice of removal to Florida federal court, arguing that removal is warranted because the insured acted in bad faith to prevent the removal of the suit by delaying its responses to the insurer’s discovery requests (La Villarena Meat & Pork Inc. v. Aspen Specialty Insurance Co., No. 19-24651, S.D. Fla.).
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico — Reinsurers on Nov. 8 joined an opposition brief arguing to a Puerto Rico federal court that an insurer’s liquidator can be bound to arbitration clauses in the insurer’s reinsurance agreements in a dispute over $150 million in losses from two hurricanes (Integrand Assurance Co. v. Everest Reinsurance Co., et al., No. 19-01111, D. Puerto Rico).
DENVER — An investor argues in a Nov. 6 opening brief with the 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that he has a valid claim under Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act with regard to his dispute over an alleged reinsurance scheme and that the lower court erred in finding that the claim is reverse-preempted under the McCarran-Ferguson Act (Albert Ogles v. Guggenheim Investments, et al., No. 19-3154, 10th Cir.).
SAN JOSE, Calif. — A California court erred in sustaining demurrers without leave to amend in a construction defects insurance lawsuit because the discovery that an insurer’s obligations to a subcontractor arose from fraudulent activity should not result in the general contractor’s insurers avoiding their obligations to their insured “in their entirety,” punishing the subcontractor’s insurer for fulfilling its obligations to it insurer, the subcontractor’s insurer argues in a Sept. 4 appellant brief filed in a California appellate court (The Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut v. Navigators Specialty Insurance Co., et al., No. H046784, Calif. App., 6th Dist.).
UTICA, N.Y. — An insurer argues in a Nov. 1 opposition brief to a New York federal court that a reinsurer failed to show a “complete absence of evidence” for a $6.25 million jury verdict in a dispute concerning two separate reinsurance certificates and coverage for settlements of asbestos claims (Utica Mutual Insurance Co. v. Century Indemnity Co., No. 13-995, N.D. N.Y.).
NEW YORK — A runoff insurer argues in an Oct. 30 opposition brief that a New York federal judge should deny reconsideration of a decision to defer ruling on an investment company’s former executive’s post-acquittal relief for advancement of $708,784.77 in legal fees and costs until the U.S. government’s appeal of a judgment acquitting the former executive in a related criminal action has been decided (In re: Platinum-Beechwood Litigation, No. 18-6658, David Levy v. Senior Health Insurance Company of Pennsylvania, No. 19-3211, S.D. N.Y.).
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — A question certified to the Florida Supreme Court by a Florida state appellate panel in a malpractice insurance dispute is too broad and failed to properly recognize that, under state law, two “distinct types of tripartite relationship may be created,” a law firm argues in an Oct. 2 respondent’s brief filed in the state Supreme Court (Arch Insurance Company v. Kubicki Draper LLP, No. 19-673, Fla. Sup.).
CHICAGO — The Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeal should reverse a district court’s ruling that an insurer owes no coverage for environmental contamination claims asserted by neighbors of an insured property, the neighbors assert in an Oct. 23 reply brief, contending that even if the insured failed to provide timely notice of the claims, the insurer was not prejudiced by the alleged late notice (Carmine Greene, et al. v. Kenneth Will, et al., No. 19-2260, 7th Cir.).
TACOMA, Wash. — A Washington federal court should uphold a bankruptcy court’s denial of an insurer’s bid to vacate a stipulated order barring its contribution claims against other insurers for asbestos claims against Chapter 11 debtor Fraser’s Boiler Service Inc., the debtor argues in an Oct. 28 response brief on appeal (National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA v. Fraser’s Boiler Service, Inc., et al., No. 3:19-cv-5648, W.D. Wash.).