Source: https://www.lexislegalnews.com/mealeys-california-insurance/news?facet=&page=8&q=
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 11:57:11+00:00

Document:
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In breach of contract disputes over reinsurance participation agreements (RPA), the U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 1 denied petitions asking whether a choice-of-law clause imports “state substantive law without importing state rules impairing arbitration” or whether the clause incorporates “both state substantive law and state arbitration principles” (Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company Inc. v. Citizens of Humanity, et al., No. 18-174; Applied Underwriters Inc., et al. v. Citizens of Humanity, et al., No. 18-175, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 1 denied a disability claimant’s petition for writ of certiorari in a dispute regarding the offsetting of the claimant’s long-term disability (LTD) benefits to account for Social Security disability income (SSDI) benefits received on behalf of the claimant’s dependents (Susan Rene Jones v. Merck Sharpe & Dohme Corp., et al., No. 17-1478, U.S. Sup.).
SAN DIEGO — An insured sufficiently stated a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress but failed to sufficiently state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress against his auto insurer, which allegedly handled his underinsured motorist benefits claim in bad faith, a California federal judge said Sept. 25 (Russell Kane v. United Services Automobile Association, et al., No. 17-2581, S.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164605).
SAN FRANCISCO — A California federal judge on Sept. 24 denied a disability plan’s motion to transfer a disability claimant’s suit to Georgia, where the claimant lived and was treated for his disability, after determining that the claimant’s choice of forum is entitled to some deference and that none of the convenience factors weighs strongly in favor of transferring the suit (Mark Ennis v. Aetna Life Insurance Co. et al., No. 18-1617, N.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163442).
OAKLAND, Calif. — A disability insurer wrongfully denied long-term disability (LTD) benefits to a plan participant suffering from liver cancer because the insurer failed to consider whether the participant could continue to perform the duties of his job with “reasonable continuity,” a California federal judge said Sept. 19 (Shelley Lyttle v. United of Omaha Life Insurance Co., No. 17-1361, N.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160300).
SAN DIEGO — In a California federal court case over breached reinsurance agreements from fraudulent transfers, a reinsurer in a Sept. 21 summary judgment reply brief says an insurance broker’s former owners fail to present a genuine disputed material fact as to the reinsurer’s status as a creditor (Odyssey Reinsurance Co. v. Richard Keith Nagby, et al., No. 16-3038, S.D. Calif.).
PASADENA, Calif.— The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Sept. 20 affirmed a lower court’s ruling that insureds breached an insurance policy’s “no-voluntary payments” provision by executing an underlying settlement with a former employee without the insurer’s knowledge or consent and that no exception to the provision applies (AMCO Insurance Company v. Jennifer Morfe, No. 17-55383 9th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 26923).
SANTA ANA, Calif. — A California appeals panel on Sept. 20 reversed a lower court’s order that imposed a preliminary injunction that prohibited the Insurance commissioner’s enforcement of California Code of Regulations, Titles 2695.1(a), 2695.2(l) and 2695.2(y), remanding for the lower court to also reverse its order granting the insurer’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as to its claim for declaratory relief (PacifiCare Life And Health Insurance Company v. Dave Jones, as Insurance Commissioner, etc., No. G053914, Calif. App., 4th Dist., Div. 3, 2018 Cal. App. LEXIS 836).
SAN DIEGO — On a motion for rehearing, a California appeals panel on Sept. 20 reaffirmed a lower court's ruling that an insurer has no duty to pay $106,102.63 in legal fees that were purportedly incurred by the insured's general counsel in defending a lawsuit arising from the sexual abuse of a foreign exchange student (Pacific Intercultural Exchange v. Scottsdale Insurance Company, No. D071478, Calif. App., 4th Dist., Div. 1, 2018 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 6432).
OAKLAND, Calif. — A California federal bankruptcy judge properly entered a more than $3.5 million judgment against an insurance company in a long-running dispute over the amount of coverage owed to a company’s liquidating trust for asbestos personal injury claims, a federal judge held Sept. 17 in affirming the award, plus a $60,000 penalty for the insurer’s “vexatious and unreasonable conduct” (Continental Casualty Company v. Barry A. Chatz, Nos. 17-cv-05281, 17-cv-06989, N.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158352).
SAN DIEGO — Arguing that there are triable issues of fact, the former owners of an insurance brokerage company in separate Sept. 14 briefs oppose a reinsurer’s request for summary judgment against them for payment of a $3.2 million judgment in a California federal court dispute over breached reinsurance agreements from fraudulent transfers (Odyssey Reinsurance Co. v. Richard Keith Nagby, et al., No. 16-3038, S.D. Calif.).
SAN DIEGO — The Fourth District California Court of Appeal on Sept. 17 affirmed a jury verdict entered in an insurer’s favor in a water damage dispute after determining that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding testimony from the insured’s expert regarding whether the water damage occurred suddenly or over a period of time (Robert Dorfman v. State Farm General Insurance Co., No. D072214, Calif. App., 4th Dist., Div. 1, 2018 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 6329).
SAN DIEGO — A majority of a California appeals court on Sept. 11 held that an insurer has failed to satisfy its burden of demonstrating that there was a triable issue of material fact regarding what caused the Poinsettia Fire that started at the defendant’s golf course and spread to its adjacent insured properties, affirming a lower court (Axis Insurance Company v. Omni Hotels Management Corp., No. D071572, Calif. App., 4th Dist., Div. 1, 2018 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 6210).
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A California federal judge on Sept. 7 granted an insurer’s motion on a bad faith claim arising out of the insurer’s payment of repair costs for an insured home damaged by a fire after determining that the insurer did not act unreasonably in accepting a lower estimate for the repair costs (Donald Durben, et al. v. State Farm General Insurance Co., et al., No. 16-754, E.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153166).
SAN FRANCISCO — An insurer has no duty to provide coverage for damages incurred as a result of a sewer line failure to a building that housed an insured restaurant because the policy at issue did not provide coverage for buildings and clearly excluded coverage for damages caused by subsurface water, a California federal judge said Sept. 5 in entering summary judgment in favor of the insurer (Ken Tu, et al. v. Dongbu Insurance Co. Ltd., No. 17-3495, N.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151322).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a breach of contract dispute over a reinsurance participation agreement (RPA), a blue jean manufacturing company and its subsidiary in an Aug. 22 brief oppose a petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether a choice-of-law clause imports “state substantive law without importing state rules impairing arbitration” or whether the clause incorporates “both state substantive law and state arbitration principles” (Applied Underwriters Inc., et al. v. Citizens of Humanity, et al., No. 18-175, U.S. Sup.).
SAN FRANCISCO — The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals should reverse a district court’s ruling that California law, rather than Alabama law, applies to an environmental contamination coverage suit because Alabama clearly has the greater interest in applying its law to the coverage dispute, an insured argues in its Aug. 20 appellant brief (Arrow Electronics Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., et al., No. 18-55810, 9th Cir.).
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — In two putative class actions regarding a reinsurance participation agreement (RPA), a California federal judge approved a new scheduling order on Aug. 31 (Shasta Linen Supply Inc. v. Applied Underwriters Inc., et al., Nos. 16-00158 & 16-01211, E.D. Calif.).

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