LANCASTER, Pa. — A homeowners insurer recently asked a Pennsylvania court to grant it summary judgment in its declaratory judgment lawsuit challenging coverage for an underlying personal injury lawsuit arising from an alleged dog bite (Donegal Mutual Insurance v. Jennifer Lynn Telepchak, No. 16-04816, Pa. Comm. Pls., Lancaster Co.).
CINCINNATI —A developer and general contractor recently asked the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse a lower federal court’s finding that its insurer has no duty to defend it against a homeowners association’s claims in an underlying defective construction lawsuit, contending that there was a “rational possibility” that the homeowners association sought damages that were covered by the policy (Clarke Company Limited v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co., No. 17-2418, 8th Cir.).
CHICAGO — An insurer and the widow of a deceased insured recently submitted briefs in the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals disputing whether an Illinois federal court erred in awarding the widow fees under the Illinois Insurance Code in relation to the insurer’s failure to attach certain contracts to its response to a motion for judgment on the pleadings (Norma Cooke v. Jackson National Life Insurance, 17-2080, 7th Cir.).
WILMINGTON, Del. — A company recently asked the Delaware Superior Court to find an insurer liable for bad faith and order the carrier to reimburse it for $9 million in damages, which the company contends it suffered as a result of the insurer’s “bad faith misrepresentations” (Homeland Insurance Company of New York v. CorVel Corporation, No. N11C-01-089-ALR, Del. Super.).
AUSTIN, Texas — An insured who transferred ownership of his three life insurance policies to a trustee has no grounds to sue over an alleged promise that he would no longer pay premiums after one lump payment as he relinquished his rights to the policy and his claims were released in a nationwide class action settlement, the insurer and its agent argue in an opening brief filed Oct. 2 in the Texas Supreme Court (The Rogers Agency, et al. v. Michael D. Lee, No. 17-0230, Texas Sup.).
SAN FRANCISCO — Primary and first-layer excess insurers argue in a recent brief to the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that because they raised a “facially non-frivolous” and “compelling” argument in favor of arbitration, a federal district court should have fully adjudicated their motion to compel arbitration instead of remanding the lawsuit to California court (SFA Group v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds London, et al., No. 16-56467, 9th Cir.).
CHICAGO — No coverage is owed to an insured manufacturer of pet food for underlying claims alleging damages caused by pet food manufactured by the insured and contaminated with pentobarbital because the insured made material misrepresentations in its application for insurance and because the policies at issue clearly preclude coverage for the underlying claims, an insurer asserts in a Dec. 5 complaint filed in Illinois federal court (Colony Insurance Co. v. Evanger’s Dog and Cat Food Co. Inc., et al., No. 17-8756, N.D. Ill.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A financial services company abandoned reliance on reinsurance agreements in its lawsuit seeking to recover a $26 million arbitration award directly from reinsurers, a credit insurer argues in a Dec. 1 reply brief to a District of Columbia federal court, seeking dismissal of the breach of contract lawsuit (Vantage Commodities Financial Services I, LLC v. Assured Risk Transfer PCC, LCC, et al., No. 17-01451, D. D.C.).
CONCORD, N.H. — After The Home Insurance Co.’s liquidator sought approval of a settlement with an insured for $42 million, an insurer who has a contribution claim against the insured says in a Nov. 30 response to a New Hampshire trial court that it has no objection to the settlement (In the Matter of the Liquidation of The Home Insurance Co., No. 03-E-0106, N.H. Super., Merrimack Co.).
COLUMBIA, S.C. — An insolvent insurer argues in a Nov. 22 reply brief to the South Carolina federal court that a bank is barred from asserting its contractual indemnification counterclaim in a dispute over the bank’s role as trustee of a reinsurance trust with an insolvent insurer because the bank has no contractual right (Accident Insurance Company Inc. v. U.S. Bank National Association, et al., No. 16-2621, D. S.C.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A reinsurer on Oct. 10 asked the District of Columbia U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse the dismissal of its complaint against Federal Crop Insurance Corp. (FCIC) in a reinsurance dispute (ACE American Insurance Co., et al v. Federal Crop Insurance Corp., 16-5348, D.C. Cir.).
SAN FRANCISCO — A group of investor plaintiffs have asked the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse a district court ruling and find that the lower court erred when it applied New York law to an insurance coverage dispute regarding the limits of excess coverage (Ruth Ann Wunderman-Cooper, et al. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, No. 15-56671, 9th Cir.).
NEW ORLEANS — Insureds have asked the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse a lower court’s ruling dismissing their lawsuit seeking coverage for 2015 property damage to their food manufacturing facility, alleging that if this case of first impression is not reversed, the lower court’s ruling will change 50 years of law and policy and strip Louisiana policyholders of their rights (Al Copeland Investments LLC, et al. v. First Specialty Insurance Corp., No. 17-30557, 5th Cir.)
CHICAGO — A plastics company and insurer recently submitted their arguments to the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, disputing whether a trial court erred when it found that the insurer was not liable to provide coverage in relation to an underlying lawsuit stemming from faulty laminate made by the company (Berry Plastics Corp., n/k/a Berry Global Inc. v. Illinois National Insurance Co., No. 17-1815, 7th Cir.).
NEW YORK — In briefs filed with the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, a life insurance provider and a bank that held a policy declared void ab initio by a trial court debate whether Delaware law was properly applied in a determination that the policy constituted an illegal stranger-originated life insurance (STOLI) policy and whether a refund of premiums was appropriate (U.S. Bank National Association v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, No. 17-0435, 2nd Cir.).
BALTIMORE — In an alleged life insurance fraud scheme that shifted debt to reinsurers, a class of plaintiffs on Nov. 21 asked a Maryland federal court to extend the relevant time period for discovery as to 11 class policies experiencing an 2015 cost of insurance (COI) increase (Richard Dickman, et al. v. Banner Life Insurance Co., No. 16-192, D. Md.).
WILMINGTON, Del. — A family on Nov. 3 told a Delaware court that an umbrella policy should cover damages from an automobile accident even where an individual insured through the policy’s extension to household members had liability limits lower than those specified by the umbrella policy (Marie Saint Hilaire, et al. v. Martha Irene Gonzalez Lankford, et al., No. K16C-12-026 JJC, Del. Super.).
CHICAGO — An insurer filed an appeal in the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals seeking to reverse a lower court’s denial of its renewed motion for judgment on the evidence after a jury returned an $87,000 verdict in favor of the insured on his breach of contract claim (David Thorne v. Member Select Insurance Co., No. 17-1377, 7th Cir.).
SAN FRANCISCO — An insurer and a real estate broker recently submitted their arguments in the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, disputing whether an exclusion in the policy precludes coverage in relation to an underlying lawsuit in which class members allege that the broker and individual agents received secret profits while acting as their real estate agents (Hanover Insurance Co. v. Paul M. Zagaris Inc. et al., 17-15477, 9th Cir.).
CHICAGO — No coverage is owed for an underlying asbestos personal injury suit filed against an insured because the policies’ pollution exclusion and silica exclusion preclude coverage, the insurers assert in a Nov. 3 complaint filed in Illinois federal court (All America Insurance Co., et al. v. Banner Truck & Trailer Sales Inc., et al., No. 17-1214, S.D. Ill.).