ATLANTA - The 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Feb. 8 found that underlying counterclaims against an insured failed to assert facts that constituted an "advertising injury" under general liability and excess insurance policies, affirming a lower federal court's finding that the insurer did not have a duty to defend its insured (IVFMD Florida, Inc. v. Allied Property & Casualty Insurance Co., No. 16-15127, 11th Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 2218).
CHICAGO - In granting an insurer's motion for summary judgment, California federal judge on Feb. 2 held that underlying claims that an insured violated the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, intentionally inferred with contractual relations and prospective business advantage and engaged in unfair competition and civil conspiracy fail to trigger an insurance policy's "personal and advertising injury" coverage (Sentinel Insurance Co. v. Yorktown Industries Inc., No. 14-4212, N.D. Ill., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14439).
SAN JOSE, Calif. - On Jan. 31, Yahoo! Inc. sued its commercial general liability (CGL) provider in California federal court, alleging breach of contract and bad faith related to the insurer's decision not to defend or indemnify the internet firm in four class actions alleging privacy violations in certain email-scanning practices (Yahoo! Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa., No. 5:17-cv-00489, N.D. Calif.).
SAN FRANCISCO - A policy's continuous or progressive injury exclusion bars coverage for two underlying suits filed against an insured because the insured's repair work to address the water intrusion problems was completed more than four years before the inception of the policy, a California federal judge said Jan. 31 (Saarman Construction Ltd. v. Ironshore Specialty Insurance Co., No. 15-3548, N.D. Calif., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13633).
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The government did not make an "informed, reasoned decision" in deciding to make the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) risk-corridor program budget-neutral, but instead simply reneged on its promises and ignored the statutory language mandating annual payments, an insurer told a federal appeals court Jan. 31 (Land of Lincoln Mutual Health Insurance Co. v. The United States of America, No. 17-1224, Fed. Cir.).
PHILADELPHIA - A federal judge in Pennsylvania in a reinsurance dispute over asbestos-related claims granted on Feb. 2 an insurer's unopposed motion for the issuance of a protective order regarding confidential information (R&Q Reinsurance Company v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company, No. 16-cv-01473, E.D. Pa.).
DETROIT - A federal judge in Michigan on Jan. 31 ordered IDS Property Casualty Insurance Co. to explain why fraud claims it is asserting against a couple accused of intentionally setting fire to their home are not forfeited compulsory counterclaims that could have been raised when the couple initially sued the company over denied coverage (IDS Property Casualty Insurance Company v. Carlos Martell, et al., NO. 13-11758, E.D. Mich., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12664).
EAST ST. LOUIS, Ill. - Allegations of an insured's failure to perform do not constitute an "occurrence" triggering coverage under a commercial general liability insurance policy, an Illinois federal judge ruled Jan. 31, agreeing with the insurer that they "are nothing more than claims of disappointed expectations in the performance of a construction contract" (Owners Insurance Co. v. James C. Warren d/b/a Warren Exterior and Remodeling, et al., No. 15-00349, S.D. Ill., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13171).
SAN ANTONIO - An insured has shown that a claims adjuster and its employee violated provisions of the Texas Insurance Code and the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) and, thus, that those defendants were properly joined in an insurance breach of contract and bad faith lawsuit, a federal judge in Texas ruled Jan. 31 in granting an insured's motion to remand the action to state court (Kris Hospitality LLC, d/b/a Days Inn, v. Tri-State Insurance Co. of Minnesota, et al., No. 16-1229, W.D. Texas, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13532).
BROOKLYN, N.Y. - A New York appeals panel on Feb. 1 found that an insurer has no duty to defend its insured under an insurance policy's directors and officers liability and entity liability coverage section, reversing a lower court's ruling against the insurer (Thomas C. Hansard, Jr. v Federal Insurance Co., No. 2014-09639, N.Y. Sup., App. Div., 2nd Dept., 2017 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 629).
NEW YORK - A New York appeals panel on Feb. 2 affirmed a lower court's ruling in favor of a lawyers professional liability insurer in a dispute over coverage for underlying counterclaims against an insured for repudiation of a consulting agreement and legal malpractice (Law Offices of Zachary R. Greenhill P.C., et al. v. Liberty Insurance Underwriters, Inc., et al., No. 650414/14, N.Y. Sup., App. Div., 1st Dept., 2017 NY Slip Op 00727).
TRENTON, N.J. - The New Jersey Supreme Court on Feb. 1 affirmed that an assignment of rights under numerous insurance policies issued between 1964 and 1986 is enforceable and valid because the assignment was made after the loss occurred and the insurers' obligation to insure the risk under the policies was not altered by the assignment to a successor company (Givaudan Fragrances Corp. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., et al., No. 2015, 076523, N.J. Sup., 2017 N.J. LEXIS 121).
NEW ORLEANS - An insurer owes no duty to an employee of an insured for damages arising out of the employee's exposure to asbestos while employed by the insured, a Louisiana federal judge said Jan. 30 in granting the insurer's motion for summary judgment (Jesse Frank Sheppard v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., et al., No. 16-2401, E.D. La., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12011).
CAMDEN, N.J. - Finding that there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether an insured submitted and an insurer received a proof of loss for the insured's Superstorm Sandy damage, a New Jersey federal judge on Jan. 31 denied the insurer's motion for summary judgment in the resulting coverage dispute (Gregg S. Balin v. New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Co., No. 14-5001, D. N.J., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12952).
NEW YORK - A federal bankruptcy judge in New York on Jan. 31 held that errors and omissions insurers violated the Barton doctrine by filing proceedings against MF Global Holdings Ltd. (MFGH) in Bermuda without obtaining leave from the bankruptcy court (In re: Mf Global Holdings Ltd., et al., Chapter 11, No. 11-15059, S.D. N.Y. Bkcy., 2017 Bankr. LEXIS 251).
NEW YORK - A Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on Jan. 31 affirmed a lower court's confirmation of a number of international arbitration awards, finding that the arbitration umpire did not exhibit evident partiality to a retrocessional reinsurer (National Indemnity Company v. IRB Brasil Resseguros S.A., No. 16-1267, 2nd Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 1686).
NEW YORK - A federal judge in New York on Jan. 30 approved a stipulation and ordered a reinsurer sued by the liquidator of an insolvent insurer for breach of contract to post a security bond with the court (Roger A. Sevigny, the Commissioner of Insurance of the State of New Hampshire, as Liquidator of The Home Insurance Company v. Trygvesta Forsikring A/S, as successor in interest to Skandinavia Insurance Company Ltd., No. 16-cv-04874, S.D. N.Y.).
MIAMI - A Florida federal judge on Jan. 30 found that a directors and officers liability insurance policy's insured vs. insured exclusion precludes coverage for underlying claims against a condominium association insured and one of its board of directors arising from the installation of hurricane impact windows and doors, granting the insurer's motion for judgment on the pleadings (The Marbella Condominium Association, et al. v. RSUI Indemnity Co., No. 16-80987, S.D. Fla., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12363).
SOUTH BEND, Ind. - An insurer has no duty to defend or indemnify an insured against claims regarding damage from its glass-cleaning work to homeowners' windows and doors, an Indiana federal judge ruled Jan. 30 because the "damage to your work" exclusion eliminates coverage for claims of damage to the windows and doors and their replacement (The Celina Mutual Insurance Co. v. Daniel L. Gallas, et al., No. 14-1616, N.D. Ind., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12166).
ST. LOUIS - The Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Jan. 31 affirmed a district court's ruling that a policy's pollution exclusion clearly bars coverage for an underlying suit alleging bodily injury caused by an explosion at a natural gas facility (Hiland Partners GP Holdings LLC, et al., v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, No. 15-3936, 8th Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 1696).
PHILADELPHIA - Although insureds have failed to plead their claim for breach of contract against their insurer, they have shown that the insurer's delay in taking part in a mandatory appraisal process was in bad faith, a federal judge in Pennsylvania ruled Jan. 30 in granting in part and denying in part the insurer's motion to dismiss (Charles Dagit, et al .v. Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Co., No. 16-3843, E.D. Pa., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12124).
SEATTLE - A Washington federal judge on Jan. 26 denied a disability insurer's motion for summary judgment after determining that an issue of fact exists as to whether the claimant was disabled pursuant to the policy's terms (Tracie D. Morgan v. Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Co., No. 16-5183, W.D. Wash.; 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11168).
INDIANAPOLIS - Because a financial institution insured's damages arose from improper overdraft charges and the fees that depositors incurred, they are excluded from coverage under its professional liability insurance policy, an Indiana federal judge ruled Jan. 26 (BancorpSouth Inc. v. Federal Insurance Co., No. 16-01871, S. D. Ind., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10817).
NEW HAVEN, Conn. - A Connecticut federal magistrate judge on Jan. 27 determined that an in camera review of a memo produced by an insurer involved in an asbestos coverage dispute must be conducted to determine if the memo contains any privileged information (ITT Corp. and Goulds Pump Inc. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co., No. 12-38, D. Conn.).
PITTSBURGH - Remand of an insurance breach of contract and bad faith lawsuit is not proper because the parties are sufficiently diverse and the plaintiffs' bad faith claim seeks damages in excess of the statutory limits, a federal judge in Pennsylvania ruled Jan. 30 in denying the plaintiffs' motion to remand and an insurer's motion to dismiss (Deborah A. Marks, et al. v. Utica First Insurance Co., No. 16-1671, W.D. Pa., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12096).