Source: http://rickspencer.com/legal_news.php
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 04:52:18+00:00

Document:
﻿ Legal News - Frederick S. Spencer, P.A.
NEW YORK - A New York justice on April 1 granted an insured's motion to dismiss an insurer's declaratory judgment suit arising out of coverage for underlying asbestos claims after determining that the insurer failed to provide any evidence that it is entitled to reimbursement of defense costs paid on behalf of the insured based on the insured's settlement with a liquidator handling the insolvency of another insurer (Zurich American Insurance Co. v. Blackman Plumbing Supply Co. Inc., No. 650059/2018, N.Y. Sup., New York Co., 2019 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1694).
CONCORD, N.H. - Reinsurers on April 9 asked a New Hampshire federal court to dismiss or stay insurers' breach of contract case over $22 million in outstanding reinsurance billings because a lawsuit pending in a New Jersey state court can resolve all rights and obligations (United States Fire Insurance Co., et al. v. Equitas Insurance Ltd., et al., No. 18-01205, D. N.H.).
HARRISBURG, Pa. - A reinsurer notified a Pennsylvania federal judge on April 9 of its intent to appeal an order compelling it and an insurer to arbitrate their reinsurance coverage dispute over lead paint losses arising in the Maryland area (Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Co. v. Everest Reinsurance Co., No. 18-mc-653 c/w No. 18-mc-656, M.D. Pa.).
OAKLAND, Calif. - A general contractor insured on April 8 filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California seeking coverage for an underlying lawsuit alleging that materials used as new fill for the levees in a flood protection project were deficient (Brosamer & Wall, Inc. v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company, No. 19-872, N.D. Calif.).
SEATTLE - A trial judge erred in concluding that the only reasonable interpretation of "decay" under an insurance policy is one that indicates some kind of decomposition of the material, a Washington appeals panel held April 8, reversing the entry of summary judgment to an insurer in a coverage dispute following a partial collapse of an insured's building (Feenix Parkside LLC v. Berkley North Pacific, et al., No. 77303-8-I, Wash. App., Div. 1, 2019 Wash. App. LEXIS 823).
NEW YORK - The Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on April 15 issued amended summary orders in two separate cases filed by homeowners who seek coverage for deteriorating and cracking basement walls in Connecticut homes, reiterating that the policies' collapse provision does not provide coverage for the defective foundation walls because there was no sudden and accidental collapse as required by the policies (Glenn R. Carlson, et al. v. Allstate Insurance Co., No. 17-3501, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 10948; Alan D. Lees, et al. v. Allstate Insurance Co., No. 18-007, 2nd Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 10949).
CHICAGO - An excess property and business interruption insurer claims in an April 5 complaint filed in Illinois federal court that it is entitled to rescind an excess policy issued to an insured poultry-processing company because the insured did not provide the excess insurer with accurate risk values of the properties for which it sought coverage (Arch Specialty Insurance Co. v. Koch Foods Inc., No. 19-2323, N.D. Ill.).
AUGUSTA, Ga. - A Georgia federal judge on March 27 determined that an insurer is not entitled to summary judgment on the issue of whether its policies' pollution exclusion bars coverage for the release of nitrogen into a warehouse because there is an issue of fact as to whether nitrogen was intended to be considered as an irritant or contaminant under the policies' pollution exclusion (Evanston Insurance Co. v. Xytex Tissue Services LLC et al., No. 17-140, S.D. Ga., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51668).
BALTIMORE - A Maryland federal judge on March 31 denied an insurer's motion for summary judgment on the issues of allocation and the length of exposure to lead paint after determining that the parties failed to adequately brief the issues in their motions for summary judgment (Allstate Insurance Co. v. Stanley Rochkind et al., No. 17-3400, D. Md., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55822).
NEW YORK - A New York justice on April 1 granted a motion to amend a complaint and the case caption in an asbestos coverage dispute after determining that the insurers will not be prejudiced if the complaint and caption are amended to reflect that one of the named defendants was acquired by another company (Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, et al. v. AT&T Corp., et al., No. 653090/2013, N.Y. Sup., New York Co.; 2019 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1543).
HELENA, Mont. - A workers' compensation insurer's discussions with its insureds did not create a duty to prevent an employee's exposure to asbestos, a W.R. Grace & Co. insurer and its amicus curiae tell the Montana Supreme Court in March 21 briefs (Maryland Casualty Co. v. The Asbestos Claims Court, et al., No. OP 19-0051, Mont. Sup.).
NEW YORK - The Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on April 2 affirmed three district court rulings in favor of a homeowners insurer in three separate cases seeking coverage for deteriorating and cracking basement walls in Connecticut homes after determining that the policies' collapse provision does not provide coverage for the defective foundation walls because there was no sudden and accidental collapse as required by the policies (William A. Valls et al., v. Allstate Insurance Co., No. 17-3495, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 9596; Glenn R. Carlson, et al., v. Allstate Insurance Co., No. 17-3501, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 9586; Alan D. Lees et al., v. Allstate Insurance Co., No. 18-007, 2nd Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 9585).
ALLENTOWN, Pa. - A bad faith claim alleged against a homeowners insurer cannot stand because the insured failed to provide evidence showing that the insurer refused or failed to properly evaluate and make a payment on the insured's claim for a water leak caused by aging pipes in the insured's home, a Pennsylvania federal judge said March 29 (Martha Mitchell v. Allstate Insurance Co. No. 17-1806, E.D. Pa., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55613).
BOSTON - The First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on April 3 affirmed a lower federal court's dismissal of an insurer's breach of warranty and strict liability subrogation lawsuit against a raw chicken supplier, finding that the allegations fail to sufficiently assert that raw contaminated chicken that the supplier sold to the insured was "defective" under Maine law (Starr Surplus Lines Insurance Company v. Mountaire Farms Inc., No. 18-1818, 1st Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 9816).
HOUSTON - No coverage is afforded to insureds for an underlying criminal proceeding arising out of environmental contamination caused by the insureds' operation of a landfill because the criminal indictment does not include a demand for any remedy that would be covered under the pollution liability policy, a Texas federal judge said March 28 (Waste Management Inc., et al. v. AIG Specialty Insurance Co., No. 16-3676, S.D. Texas, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53525).
LAKE CHARLES, La. - No coverage is owed for an underlying environmental contamination lawsuit filed against an insured because the policies' pollution exclusions clearly bar coverage for all of the underlying claims, a Louisiana federal judge said March 28 (Evanston Insurance Co. v. Riceland Petroleum Co., No. 17-1031, W.D. La., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53830).
SYRACUSE, N.Y. - A reinsurer is not liable for any additional monies to an insurer under a 1973 facultative reinsurance certificate, a New York federal judge held March 29, also finding that a voluntary payment doctrine bars the reinsurer from recovering loss and declaratory judgment expenses it has already paid the insurer under a 1977 facultative reinsurance certificate (Utica Mutual Insurance Co. v. Munich Reinsurance America Inc., Nos. 12-00196 & 13-00743, N.D. N.Y., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53470).
HELENA, Mont. - Most negligence, bad faith and wrongful death claims filed by 29 Montana claimants against an insurer of former Chapter 11 debtor W.R. Grace & Co. survive the insurer's dismissal bid under the state's statute of limitations, a federal judge in the state ruled March 22 (Billie J. Schull, et al. v. Maryland Casualty Company, No. 6:17-cv-76, D. Mont., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48099).
WILMINGTON, Del. - A Delaware federal bankruptcy judge on March 26 ruled that affiliates of Chapter 11 debtor Imerys Talc America Inc. can tap into insurance coverage to defend against asbestos claims regardless of Imerys' bankruptcy stay, on the condition that they win an adversary action filed by the debtor to keep the stay intact (In re: Imerys Talc America, Inc., et al., No. 1:19-bk-10289, D. Del. Bkcy.).
SAN FRANCISCO - An insurer accuses two reinsurers in a March 25 complaint filed in a California federal court of failing to pay amounts owed under facultative reinsurance contracts in connection with alleged liability to asbestos personal injury claims (Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania v. Transport Insurance Co., et al., No. 19-01532 N.D. Calif.).
NEW HAVEN, Conn. - No coverage is afforded under two homeowners policies for cracking and deteriorating basement walls caused by the use of defective concrete because one of the policies includes an exclusion for cracking caused by the use of defective construction materials and the other policy provides coverage only for sudden and abrupt collapses, a Connecticut federal judge said March 29 (Frank V. Huschle, et al. v. Allstate Insurance Co., et. al., No. 18-248, D. Conn., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53978).
NEW ORLEANS - Based on the answer to a certified question to the Mississippi Supreme Court, the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on March 21 affirmed a district court's ruling that Mississippi's voluntary payment doctrine bars an insurer from recovering a settlement payment made on behalf of an additional insured that the insurer believed was not covered under the policy because the payment was not made under compulsion (Colony Insurance Co. v. First Specialty Insurance Corp., No. 17- 60094, 5th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 8535).
LOS ANGELES - An insured involved in a long-standing asbestos insurance coverage dispute argues in a March 15 reply brief filed in the Second District California Court of Appeal that the appeals court should enforce its decision in a 2007 case and reverse a trial court's finding that the insured's attempt to recover more than $6.6 million in deductibles is time-barred (Truck Insurance Exchange v. Kaiser Cement & Gypsum Corp., et al., No. B278091, Calif. App., 2nd Dist., Div. 4, 2019 CA App. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 643).
WILMINGTON, Del. - Negligence claims leveled by asbestos plaintiffs in Montana against insurers of former Chapter 11 debtor W.R. Grace & Co. are not enjoined by W.R. Grace's bankruptcy injunction because they do not meet the requirements for derivative claims, the plaintiffs argue in a March 6 brief on remand in Delaware federal bankruptcy court (Continental Casualty Co., et al. v. Jeremy B. Carr, et al., No. 15-50766, D. Del. Bkcy.).
ATLANTA - The Georgia Court of Appeals should affirm a trial court's ruling that no coverage is owed for an underlying suit alleging bodily injuries caused by exposure to lead paint because the policy at issue includes a lead exclusion that clearly bars coverage, the insurer argues in a recently filed appellee brief (Mary Douglas, et al. v. Country Mutual Insurance Co., No, A19A0925, Ga. App., 2019 GA App. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 64).
MIAMI - A Florida federal judge on March 19 partially granted a motion to dismiss filed by the defendants in a suit seeking a coverage declaration for the collapse of a pedestrian bridge after determining that the duty-to-defend issue is moot following the dismissal of the underlying suits arising out of the bridge collapse (The Travelers Indemnity Co., et al. v. Figg Bridge Engineers Inc., et al., No. 18-22585, S.D. Fla.).
BOSTON - A trial judge erred in finding that an insured's work on concrete slab was inseparable from other subcontractors' work on other layers of a flooring system and in ruling that an insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify, the Massachusetts Appeals Court held March 19, vacating judgment and remanding for further proceedings (All America Insurance Co. v. Lampasona Concrete Corp., No. 18-P-247, Mass. App., 2019 Mass. App. LEXIS 34).
MISSOULA, Mont. - A Montana federal judge on March 6 denied a commercial general liability insurer's motion for summary judgment in its lawsuit disputing coverage for an underlying $441,770.83 award against its contractor insured over claims that thermal T-panel systems that were installed by the insured were not effective and caused additional damage to condominium units (Western Heritage Insurance Co. v. Slopeside Condominium Association, Inc., et al., 17-162, D. Mont., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36009).
with all the facts and circumstances of a particular, specific case and the relevant law.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.