LOS ANGELES - An insured knew by 2008 that at least one insured structure had suffered damage from a neighbor's negligent construction activities but failed to timely notify the insurer or to file suit within the policy's two-year contractual limitations provision, a California appeals panel held Feb. 29, affirming summary judgment to the insurer (Anthony N. Kling as Trustee of the Anthony N. Kling Trust of 1997 v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, No. B260738, Calif. App., 2nd Dist., Div. 4; 2016 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1458).
NEWARK, N.J. - Olympus Corp. of the Americas and a Latin America subsidiary will pay $646 million in criminal and civil penalties for paying kickbacks to health care providers to buy its endoscopes and causing false claims to be paid by federal health care programs, according to documents filed March 1 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (United States of America v. Olympus Corporation of the Americas, No. 16-3524, and United States ex rel. Slowik, et al. v. Olympus America. Inc., et al., No. 10-5994, D. N.J.).
PITTSBURGH - An insured filed a notice of appeal to the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeal on March 1, challenging a Pennsylvania federal judge's finding that an insurer's rescission of a product contamination insurance policy was warranted (H.J. Heinz Co. v. Starr Surplus Lines Insurance Co., No. 15-0631, W.D. Pa.).
CINCINNATI - The Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Feb. 29 affirmed a lower federal court's ruling in favor of an excess insurer in a coverage dispute stemming from an underlying federal investigation involving Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) regulations (Ashland Hospital Corp., d/b/a King's Daughters Medical v. RLI Insurance Co., No. 15-5377, 6th Cir.).
ATLANTA - The 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on March 1 affirmed a lower federal court's ruling in favor of an insurer in a coverage dispute over an underlying lawsuit seeking damages for $1.9 million in past due premiums pursuant to a contract between an employee-leasing company insured and Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS), noting that the underlying suit is a "run of the mill" breach of contract dispute and does not seek damages for the wrongful diversion of funds (Payroll Management, Inc., et al. v. Lexington Insurance Company, No. 15-10314-EE, 11th Cir.; 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 3790).
WASHINGTON, D.C. - A Maryland woman pleaded guilty on Feb. 25 to charges of forging prescriptions and being involved with a health care fraud scheme and agreed to pay $16,175 (United States of America v. Claire Elizabeth Rice, No. 14-cr-56, D. D.C.).
LOS ANGELES - Resolution of a primary insurer's coverage lawsuit against an excess insurer for a mutual insured's water damage claims would require the "needless determination of state law issues and would be duplicative of, and possibly inconsistent with, state court proceedings," a California federal judge ruled Feb. 26, granting a motion to remand (James River Insurance Co. v. Starr Indemnity and Liability Co., No. 15-09972, C.D. Calif.; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24705).
SPRINGFIELD, Mo. - A federal judge in Missouri on Feb. 29 denied a couple's motion to strike Allstate Indemnity Co.'s disclosure of two nonretained experts, holding that evidence regarding the value of the couple's home could be used to show if they had a motive to commit arson fraud (Allstate Indemnity Company v. Joseph Dixon, et al., No. 14-cv-03489-MDH. W.D. Mo.; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24678).
LOUISVILLE, Ky. - A Kentucky federal judge on Feb. 25 granted an insured's motion to dismiss an excess insurer's declaratory judgment lawsuit disputing coverage for an underlying indemnity claim over a product liability dispute, finding that no real controversy exists between the parties (Interstate Fire & Casualty Co. v. BFK, Inc., No. 15-150, W.D. Ky.; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23537).
HARRISBURG, Pa. - An insurer is liable for an insured's defense and indemnification costs incurred as a result of underlying asbestos personal injury lawsuits filed against the insured, a Pennsylvania federal judge said Feb. 29 (York International Corp. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., No. 10-0692, M.D. Pa.; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24294).
SANTA ANA, Calif. - A California appeals panel on Feb. 26 held that an insurer did not satisfy its initial burden of demonstrating that it could not be held vicariously liable for the actions of its agent, reversing judgment on all but one claim in a dispute arising from the sale of $10 million in life insurance policies (Garret Weyand v. Union Central Life Insurance Co., No. G051071, Calif. App., 4th Dist., Div. 3; 2016 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1422).
NEW YORK - A New York justice on Feb. 25 issued an order to show cause why the court should not terminate the ancillary receivership of a New Jersey insurer doing business in New York (In the Matter of the Ancillary Receivership of Newark Insurance Company, No. 400874/09, N.Y. Sup., New York Co.).
PITTSBURGH - The Pennsylvania Superior Court on Feb. 25 affirmed a lower court's ruling that an insurer has no duty to defend its insured against an underlying counterclaim for unfair competition (PeopleKeys Inc., et al. v. Westfield Insurance Co., No. 100 WDA 2015, Pa. Super.; 2016 Pa. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 599).
LAKELAND, Fla. - A majority of a Florida appeals court found Feb. 26 that a lower court gave an improper jury instruction on a homeowners insurer's burden of proof and compounded its error with a misleading instruction as to the directed verdict it entered in favor of the insureds, reversing and remanding a $542,883.49 judgment in favor of the insureds in a sinkhole coverage dispute (Citizens Property Insurance Corp. v. Rona Salkey, et al., No. 2D14-3002 consolidated with No. 2D14-5077, Fla. App., 2nd Dist.; 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 2840).
SAN FRANCISCO - Relying on an answer from the Oregon Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Feb. 23 vacated an order granting summary judgment to an insurer because an original settlement agreement did not extinguish whatever liability the insurer may have to its insured for alleged construction defects (A&T Siding, Inc. v. Capitol Specialty Insurance Corp., No. 12-35180, 9th Cir.; 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 3140).
DENVER - A federal judge in Colorado on Feb. 24 denied an insurer's motion for a more definite statement in an insurance breach of contract and bad faith lawsuit, ruling that the insurer had proper information to answer the complaint (John Segura v. Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Co., No. 16-0047, D. Colo.; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22440).
NORFOLK, Va. - A Virginia federal judge on Feb. 22 held that a commercial general liability insurance policy's "failure to conform" and "intellectual property" exclusions relieve the insurer of its duty defend and indemnify its flood vent manufacturer insured against an underlying lawsuit brought by a competitor, granting the insurer's motion for summary judgment (Selective Way Insurance Co. v. Crawl Space Door System, Inc. d/b/a Crawl Space Door Systems, Inc., No. 14-650, E.D. Va.; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22097).
SEATTLE - An insured's claims for insurance bad faith and violation of the Insurance Fair Conduct Act (IFCA) are barred under three-year statute of limitations, a Washington federal judge ruled Feb. 23, granting in part summary judgment to an insurer (Gary Taylor v. Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Co., No. 15-00030, E.D. Wash.; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22065).
ST. LOUIS - An insured's payments for mold remediation are not covered under commercial general liability insurance policies because its legal obligation to remediate the mold did not spring from "liability imposed by law," the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed Feb. 24 (Busch Properties Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., No. 14-3699, 8th Cir.; 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 3174).
ST. LOUIS - In a class action, insureds failed to assert bad faith claims against their homeowners insurer for denied coverage and refusal to participate in appraisal of damages from a pipe burst, the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed Feb. 24 (Michael Adams and Colleen Adams, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co., No. 15-1475, 8th Cir.; 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 3181).
DENVER - An insurer is not entitled to summary judgment in an insurance breach of contract and bad faith lawsuit because the factual allegations provided in the underlying complaint "do not fall solely and exclusively within the boundaries of the policy exclusions," a federal judge in Colorado ruled Feb. 22 (Weldesamuel Gebremedhin, et al. v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co., No. 13-2813, D. Colo.; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21059).
SEATTLE - A federal judge in Washington on Feb. 23 denied an insurer's motion for summary judgment in an insurance bad faith lawsuit, ruling that the motion depends on a vacated order denying coverage (Larson Motors Inc. v. Phoenix Insurance Co., No. 15-85, W.D. Wash.; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21995).
PASADENA, Calif. - The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Feb. 23 affirmed a lower federal court's post-trial rulings in a breach of contract and bad faith dispute arising from a 2008 wildfire (Craig Milhouse, et al. v. Travelers Commercial Insurance Co., Nos. 13-56959 and 13-57029, 9th Cir.; 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 3145).
NEW YORK - Chapter 11 debtor Rapid-American Corp. and the three insurers that have not settled their coverage disputes with the debtor on Feb. 22 agreed to a briefing schedule and hearing date for Rapid-American's motions for summary judgment on the insurers' obligation to pay for asbestos personal injury claims (Rapid-American Corporation, et al. v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, et al., No. 15-01095, S.D. N.Y. Bkcy.).
MASON, Mich. - A Michigan judge on Feb. 19 approved the settlement of certain health care provider claims against an insurer in rehabilitation (Patrick McPharlin, Director of the Department of Insurance and Financial Services v. Affirmative Insurance Company of Michigan, No. 15-898-CR, Mich. Cir., Ingham Co.).