NEW YORK — An insurer in Jan. 15 brief asks a New York federal court for summary judgment on its claims against a reinsurer for breach of its obligation to post $1.6 million in collateral under a reinsurance agreement and to declare that the reinsurer remains required to post that collateral (AmTrust North America Inc. v. Signify Insurance Ltd., et al., No 18-3779, S.D. N.Y.).
AUSTIN, Texas — An insured recently asked the Texas Supreme Court to reverse a lower court’s ruling in favor of its commercial property insurer on its claims for bad faith and under Texas’ Prompt Payment of Claims Act (PPCA) arising from wind and hail property damage (Steven Biasatti, et al. v. GuideOne National Insurance Company, et al., No. 18-0911, Texas Sup.).
RICHMOND, Va. — The Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments Jan. 28 over whether a $1,382,653 judgment stemming from an attorney’s margin and day trading of trust funds falls within his policy insuring professional services (Alps Property & Casualty Insurance Co., et al v. Ivan L. Higgerson Sr., et al., No. 18-2245, 4th Cir.).
SAN FRANCISCO — An insured recently filed a brief in the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals contending that a district court erred when it held that an insurer did not owe coverage for underlying litigation pertaining to violations of several provisions of the California Labor Code (U.S. Telepacific Corp. v. U.S. Specialty Insurance Company, No. 19-55828, 9th Cir.).
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — A magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) company recently asked the Florida Supreme Court to reverse an appeals court’s finding that a personal injury protection (PIP) policy’s express language “clearly and unambiguously” elected to limit reimbursement payments for medical expenses to the schedule of maximum charges that is detailed in the state’s PIP statute (MRI Associates of Tampa Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, No. SC18-1390, Fla. Sup.).
NEW ORLEANS — A commercial general liability insurer on Nov. 25 filed its response in the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeal to an insured’s appeal of a lower court’s finding that the insurer has no duty to defend against an underlying lawsuit seeking to recover damages purportedly caused by a data breach of the insured’s credit card processing system (Landry's Inc. v. The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, No. 19-20430, 5th Cir.).
OAKLAND, Calif. — An operator of vineyards and winemaking operations in California on Jan. 3 sued London insurers for breach of contract and bad faith in a California federal court, alleging that they wrongfully refused to pay for smoke exposure damage to its finished wines caused by the October 2017 wildfires in Sonoma and Napa County, Calif., and seeking $12 million for its loss (Vintage Wine Estates, Inc. v. Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance PLC, et al., No. 20-00101, N.D. Calif.).
CHICAGO — Arbitrators intended their second award to be final and, thus, an Illinois federal court should confirm that award and not the interim award under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), an insurer argues in a Jan. 3 reply brief in its dispute with a reinsurer over billings for asbestos claims (Allstate Insurance Co. v. Amerisure Mutual Insurance Co., No. 19-4341; Amerisure Mutual Insurance Co. v. Allstate Insurance Co., No. 19-7080, N.D. Ill.).
SAN FRANCISCO — A reinsurer argues in a Jan. 3 reply that the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals should reverse an order denying its motion to intervene in a dispute over a $3.2 million judgment and remand to allow the reinsurer to proceed with its claims against another reinsurer, which is the judgment creditor (Odyssey Reinsurance Co. v. Richard Keith Nagby, et al. v. Knight Insurance Company Ltd., Nos. 19-55346, 19-55347, 19-55423, 9th Cir.).
HARRISBURG, Pa. — Following an affirmance by the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, an insurer in a Dec. 23 brief asks a Pennsylvania federal judge to lift a stay regarding an order compelling the insurer and its reinsurer to arbitrate their dispute over lead paint losses (Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Co. v. Everest Reinsurance Co., No. 18-mc-653, M.D. Pa.).
JASPER, Ala. — Citing no subject matter jurisdiction, an insurer in a Dec. 27 motion asks an Alabama federal court to dismiss a former female prison inmate’s claim seeking a declaratory judgment as a judgment creditor of the insurer’s rights under reinsurance agreements in her lawsuit alleging sexual misconduct in a jail (Jessica Rainer v. J.C. Poe Jr., et al., No. 19-1392, N.D. Ala.).
JASPER, Ala. — The city of Jasper and employees on Dec. 19 moved for judgment on the pleadings in two Alabama federal court cases, which also name their insurer, over allegations by former jail inmates of sexual misconduct in a jail because the city’s civil service board is “not legally cognizable nor endowed with the ability to sue or be sued” (Whitley Goodson v. J.C. Poe, Jr., et al., No. 19-1399, Charity Tessener v. J.C. Poe, Jr., et al., No. 19-01314, N.D. Ala.).
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico — An insolvent insurer’s liquidator in a Dec. 21 motion asks that a Puerto Rico federal judge alter or amend his ruling to stay arbitration proceedings in a case over $150 million in losses from two hurricanes against its reinsurers until a stay in the insurer’s liquidation order is lifted (Integrand Assurance Co. v. Everest Reinsurance Co., et al., No. 19-01111, D. Puerto Rico).
NEW YORK — Liquidators of hedge funds argue in a Dec. 16 motion filed in a New York federal court that allegations in two lawsuits involving a runoff insurer that concern a hedge fund scheme and the misuse and mismanagement show that a defendant “is a corporate insider with direct involvement in day-to-day affairs for the purposes of the group pleading doctrine” (In re Platinum-Beechwood Litigation, No. 18-6658, Martin Trott, et al. v. Platinum Management [NY] LLC, et al., No. 18-10936; Melanie L. Cyganowski, et al. v. Beechwood Re Ltd., et al., No. 18-12018, S.D. N.Y.).
CHICAGO — A reinsurer argues in a Dec. 13 brief that an Illinois federal court should not confirm a second award reversing parts of a first award over reinsurance billings for asbestos claims under five out of six contracts but should confirm the first award and part of the second award resolving the dispute under the sixth contract (Allstate Insurance Co. v. Amerisure Mutual Insurance Co., No. 19-4341; Amerisure Mutual Insurance Co. v. Allstate Insurance Co., No. 19-7080, N.D. Ill.).
SAN FRANCISCO — A judgment creditor tells the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in a Dec. 13 brief that a reinsurer’s motion to intervene was untimely in its dispute over a $3.2 million judgment and that the reinsurer lacked the “requisite legal interest to support intervention” (Odyssey Reinsurance Co. v. Richard Keith Nagby, et al. v. Knight Insurance Company Ltd., Nos. 19-55346, 19-55347 & 19-55423, 9th Cir.).
SALT LAKE CITY — A excess insurer on Dec. 2 filed an amended complaint against e-cigarette maker Juul Labs Inc. (JLI) seeking a Utah federal court’s declaration that a $5 million liability policy is null and void because of alleged misrepresentations made about the discontinuance of candy-flavored vaping pods and about class actions by injured users (Prime Insurance Company v. Juul Labs, Inc., No. 19-925, D. Utah).
BOSTON — An environmental liability insurer must pay an additional $2.9 million for the discharge of wastewater at an insured food processing facility because mitigation costs related to the pollution event are covered under the policy at issue, the insured asserts in a Dec. 11 complaint filed against the insurer in Massachusetts federal court (Ken’s Foods Inc. v. Steadfast Insurance Co., No. 19-12492, D. Mass.).
JACKSONVILLE, Fla. — An insurer on Dec. 10 asked a federal court in Florida to dismiss its insureds’ amended breach of contract complaint arising from Hurricane Irma damage to their St. Augustine, Fla., residential property, arguing that the express language of the lender-placed insurance policy unambiguously bars the plaintiffs from bringing the breach of contract claim as either named insureds or intended third-party beneficiaries to the policy (Jeffrey G. Meyer, et al. v. Integon National Insurance Company, No. 19-1397, M.D. Fla.).
CHICAGO — An insurer argues in a Nov. 22 brief that an Illinois federal court should confirm a final award in its reinsurance billings dispute over asbestos claims and reject a reinsurer’s motion to confirm an interim award (Allstate Insurance Co. v. Amerisure Mutual Insurance Co., No. 19-4341; Amerisure Mutual Insurance Co. v. Allstate Insurance Co., No. 19-7080, N.D. Ill.).