CHICAGO - The Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on April 26 accepted the voluntary dismissal of an employer's trust's appeal of a ruling that an insurer did not act in bad faith when it delegated to a reinsurer its responsibility to the trust because a contract placed no limits on the insurer's ability to do so and contained no requirements for disclosure of any assignments (Midco International, Inc. Employees Profit Sharing Trust v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., No. 17-2570, 7th Cir.).
ATLANTA - The Georgia Republican Party (GRP) lacks standing to challenge the Securities and Exchange Commission's enactment of a rule limiting the ability Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) members to make political contributions to government officials they solicitate for investment advisory services contracts because the GRP is not a placement agent that would be effected by the rule, an 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel ruled April 26 in dismissing the GRP from the action and transferring it to the District of Columbia Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (Georgia Republican Party v. SEC, No. 16-16623, 11th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 10645).
SEATTLE - An insured seeking coverage for underinsured motorist benefits cannot maintain claims for breach of fiduciary and breach of contract against an insurance adjuster; however, the insured can allege a bad faith claim against the insurance adjuster as the bad faith claim pertains to the handling of the claim, a Seattle federal judge said April 23 (Charlon R. Johnson v. Gallagher Bassett Services Inc., et al., No. 18-5029, W.D. Wash., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68089).
SAN DIEGO - A California federal judge on April 24 granted a jiu-jitsu kimono maker's motion to dismiss claims asserted by a competitor for violation of California's unfair competition law (UCL), fraud and other claims, but refused to dismiss a claim for breach of contract in relation to a nondisclosure agreement for proprietary data and development materials (Champion Courage Ltd. v. Fighter's Market Inc., et al., No. 17-cv-01855, S.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69043).
MIAMI - In a coverage dispute over the installation of Chinese drywall, a subcontractor failed to establish that an excess insurer has a duty to indemnify it for its damages, a Florida federal judge ruled April 25, granting summary judgment to the excess insurer on claims for declaratory judgment, breach of contract and bad faith (Peninsula II Developers Inc., et al. v. Westchester Fire Insurance Co., No. 09-23691, S.D. Fla., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69479).
OPELIKA, Ala. - An Alabama federal magistrate judge on April 20 recommended against dismissing a former college football player's breach of contract and bad faith suit against a disability insurer after determining that the insurer does have sufficient minimum contacts with the state of Alabama for specific personal jurisdiction to exist (Kristopher Frost v. North American Capacity Insurance Co., No. 17-344, M.D. Ala., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67957).
CINCINNATI - The Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on April 20 affirmed a lower federal court's grant of summary judgment in favor of a commercial excess insurer in an insured's breach of contract lawsuit seeking to recover $306,808.46 in post-judgment interest that was awarded against it in an underlying product liability dispute (Key Safety Systems Inc. v. AIG Specialty Insurance Co., 17-1934, 6th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 9951).
BALTIMORE - A Maryland federal magistrate judge on April 19 denied an insurer's motion to dismiss a breach of contract counterclaim in an asbestos coverage dispute but granted the insurer's motion to dismiss a bad faith counterclaim on the basis that the insured cannot allege a claim for bad faith if the applicable policy cannot be located (Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Co. v. Tate Andale Inc., No. 17-0670, D. Md., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66981).
SAN DIEGO - Dismissal of an insured's insurance breach of contract and bad faith lawsuit is necessary because her claims were not brought within the applicable statute of limitations and she has failed to show that the limitations period was tolled by the discovery rule, a federal judge in California ruled Feb. 20 in granting an insurer's motion to dismiss (Laurel Davis v. Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston, No. 17-0738, S.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27045).
PHILADELPHIA - A panel of the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Feb. 21 affirmed a trial court's decision to grant summary judgment to a restaurant where a woman claimed that she contracted an infection from the clams because she did not prove that the restaurant created the defect in the clams (Maureen Horan, et al. v. Dilbert Inc., et al., No. 17-2243, 3rd Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 4410).
BUFFALO, N.Y. - New York's top court on Feb. 15 agreed to hear a dispute over whether a contract involving coke oven batteries are products for the purposes of an asbestos products liability action or whether the construction project constituted services (In the matter of the Eighth Judicial District Asbestos Litigation, Donald J. Terwilliger, et al. v. Beazer East Inc., et al., No. APL-2018-00023, N.Y. App., 2018 N.Y. LEXIS 187).
SAN FRANCISCO - Remand of an insurance breach of contract and bad faith lawsuit to state court is necessary because the Ninth Circuit U.S. Courts of Appeals has yet to adopt the "fraudulent misjoinder" standard established by the 11th Circuit, which an insurer argues is the basis for the action's removal to federal court in the first place, a federal judge in California ruled Feb. 13 in remanding the action to state court (Maria I. Delgado v. Primerica Life Insurance Co., et al., No. 17-3744, N.D. Calif., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23615).
CINCINNATI - The Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Feb. 14 affirmed a lower court's dismissal of a breach of contract, unjust enrichment, fraudulent inducement and intentional and negligent misrepresentation lawsuit against a federal flood insurer, reiterating that the claims are preempted by the National Flood Insurance Act (NFIA) (D&S Remodelers Inc. v. Wright National Flood Insurance Services LLC, et al., No.17-5554, 6th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 3382).
NEW HAVEN, Conn. - After dismissing all claims based on a "collapse" from faulty concrete against one homeowners insurer for not occurring during its policy period, a Connecticut federal judge on Feb. 13 dismissed all but a breach of contract claim against another insurer because a reasonable jury could find that the insurer breached its policy (Shawn M. Kowalyshyn, et al. v. Excelsior Insurance Co., et al., No. 16-00148, D. Conn., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22981).
NEW YORK - In a coverage dispute over asbestos litigation costs, a reinsurer and insurer submitted letters on Feb. 9 to the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals concerning how a New York high court ruling applies to a reinsurance contract's per-occurrence liability cap (Global Reinsurance Corporation of America v. Century Indemnity Co., No. 15-2164, 2nd Cir.).
SAN FRANCISCO - A California federal judge on Feb. 9 refused to dismiss a borrower's claims for breach of contract and negligence asserted by a borrower against a bank but found that the bank did not commit unlawful acts in violation California's unfair competition law (UCL) and that part of his claim for violation of the California Homeowners Bill of Rights (HBOR) also failed (Steve Johnson v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, No. 3:17-cv-03676, N.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22829).
TAMPA, Fla. - Competing experts in a breach of contract lawsuit over the inspection of a company's airplane both had their proposed testimony limited Feb. 13 by a Florida federal judge (Oil Consulting Enterprise, Inc. v. Hawker Beechcraft Global Customer Support, LLC, No. 8:16-cv-3453, M.D. Fla., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23273).
TRENTON, N.J. - An auto insurer is liable for personal injury protection (PIP) benefits for an unnamed additional insured under terms of a voided insurance contract, a New Jersey appeals panel affirmed Feb. 8 (Tyrone S. Henry Sr., et al. v. Santosh S. Bhowmik, et al., No. A-3331-15T4, N.J. Super., App. Div., 2018 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 286).
NEW YORK - The purchaser of Russian chick peas that were never delivered pursuant to three contracts sued the seller of the product in a New York federal court on Feb. 9, seeking to confirm an English arbitral award issued in its favor (PKT Associates Inc. v. Granum Group LLC, No. 1:18-cv-01169, S.D. N.Y.).
TRENTON, N.J. - A federal judge in New Jersey on Feb. 9 granted a motion by three doctors to dismiss a medical malpractice suit against them after finding that the court does not have jurisdiction over the case, in which a woman claimed that she contracted an infection after a surgery (Francie Meth v. Thomas Jefferson Hospitals Inc., et al., No. 3:17-CV-13323, D. N.J., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21312).