(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a former company president did not have to arbitrate his claims that the CEO and others wrongfully diluted his interest in the high-tech company's stock. His employment contract's arbitration clause did not cover this situation. Affirmed the denial of a motion to compel arbitration.

(California Court of Appeal) - Revived a lawsuit accusing a board member of a nonprofit organization of self-dealing and other misconduct. Held that the plaintiff, also a board member, had legal standing even though the board of directors subsequently removed her from the board. Reversed a dismissal.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a board member of a nonprofit corporation was not entitled to a preliminary injunction barring her from being removed from the board. Reversed a preliminary injunction, in this case involving a nonprofit that operates public radio stations.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed that an insurance company timely removed an insurance coverage case to federal court by filing a notice of removal within the statutory 30-day time limit. The clock began to run only when the insurance company actually received the insured's complaint, not when its statutorily designated agent did.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a subcontractor hired to install utility boxes in a residential subdivision had a contractual duty to defend the developer from a personal injury claim alleging that the plaintiff fell into a defectively constructed utility box. Reversed and remanded.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that a health insurance company did not violate the Affordable Care Act's Medical Loss Ratio provision, which requires an insurer to pay a rebate to enrollees if it uses less than 80 percent of the revenue it takes in to pay medical claims. Affirmed a dismissal, in this proposed class action lawsuit brought by health insurance enrollees.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed a judgment in favor of a medical supplier in its lawsuit against a health insurance company that refused to pay for covered services. The supplier, which provides equipment and staffing to doctors who perform surgery in their own offices, prevailed in a jury trial.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that an insurance company did not have to arbitrate a former employee's claims before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), an entity with which the company had severed ties. The FINRA arbitration code no longer applied to the company, even though the employee had once been registered as a securities industry representative of the company.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that a policyholder who successfully sued a life insurance company was not entitled to an award of attorney fees. Reversed the fee award, in this diversity jurisdiction case.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed the denial of a motion to compel arbitration of an insurance dispute. A company that sued its workers' compensation insurer over premium hikes contended that the case did not have to be arbitrated because the California Insurance Code invalidated the parties' arbitration agreement.

(California Court of Appeal) - In an insurance coverage dispute, addressed whether the daughter of an insured car crash victim was entitled to benefits under an uninsured motorist policy. Affirmed a judgment on the pleadings.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that an insurance company could not bring a subrogation claim against its insured's tenant (a furniture manufacturing business) for amounts paid out under a fire insurance policy, even if the tenant was negligent. Affirmed a summary judgment ruling.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that homeowners were not insured for their home's allegedly defective concrete foundation. The gradual deterioration of their still‐standing basement walls did not constitute a covered "collapse" under their homeowner's insurance policy. Affirmed a dismissal.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that an automobile insurance policyholder who was unhappy with the handling of her claim for the total loss of her vehicle did not have to submit the dispute to a panel of appraisers, as set forth in the policy. Affirmed the denial of the insurer's motion to compel appraisal in this proposed class action.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that an insurance company did not abuse its discretion in denying disability benefits to an attorney who stopped working due to intractable migraines. Affirmed the judgment below in this ERISA case.

(California Court of Appeal) - Addressed a dispute regarding who was entitled to monies paid under a life insurance policy. The issue concerned an irrevocable life insurance trust. Reversed the sustaining of a demurrer.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an insurance coverage dispute, revived an industrial plant's claim that the insurer should have provided coverage when broken metal brackets resulted in a shutdown of the entire facility. Reversed a summary judgment ruling.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In an insurance dispute following an explosion and fire on an oil rig in Ohio, addressed arbitrability and personal jurisdiction issues. Affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision below.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that insurers that paid a claim arising from the failure of a floating oil-drilling platform could not proceed with a subrogation claim against an engineering firm that helped secure the platform to the ocean floor. Also addressed an arbitrability issue. Affirmed a dismissal.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that an insurance company was not liable for bad faith for failing to settle a medical malpractice claim for the policy limit. Affirmed a JMOL against the claims of an outpatient surgical center.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - In a dispute over life insurance coverage, held that a policy exclusion was applicable because a man's death from engaging in an act known as autoerotic asphyxiation qualified as intentionally self-inflicted injury.

(California Court of Appeal) - Judgment reversed and remanded. Defendant prevailed at an administrative hearing and civil penalties were imposed against Mercury. Mercury filed a writ of mandate, which the trial court granted. Appellate court held that the writ was issued in error, because the trial court did not use the proper standard of review, failed to give the proper presumption of correctness, and failed to place the burden of proof on Mercury.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that an insurance company did not have to indemnify an insured for the cost of cleaning up groundwater contamination at its industrial sites. Affirmed summary judgment in favor of the insurer, in this case involving the policy's pollution exclusion clause.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a homeowner could not proceed with a lawsuit against an insurance company related to a claim for flood damage. Affirmed summary judgment in favor of the insurer.

(California Court of Appeal) - Upheld a punitive damages award against an automobile insurance company for unreasonably delaying payment to a policyholder after a car crash.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a dispute between a homeowner and a property insurance company over an allegedly misdirected check, held that the homeowner had no cause of action under a Uniform Commercial Code provision dealing with negotiable instruments. Affirmed summary judgment against the homeowner.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a county government's insurers had a duty to defend a civil rights lawsuit relating to the murder convictions of three innocent men who were later exonerated. The county contended that the insurance policies were triggered even though the wrongful acts occurred before the policy period. Affirmed that there was a duty to defend.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In an insurance coverage dispute arising out of a car crash, construed Mississippi's Uninsured Motorist Act. Held that the insurer was entitled to summary judgment in this diversity action.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that a construction company's surety (an insurance company) may not augment its contractual indemnification rights with the ancient doctrine of quia timet -- equitable protection from probable future harm. The construction company allegedly had gone belly up on a government project. Affirmed summary judgment against the surety's claim.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In an insurance coverage case, held that a homeowner delayed too long before bringing suit over a flood insurance claim. Affirmed summary judgment in favor of the insurer, holding that the suit was time-barred.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that an insurance company owed a duty to defend a general contractor who was being sued by homeowners over alleged roofing defects. The case involved a commercial general liability insurance policy issued to a roofing subcontractor. Reversed the decision below.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that an insurance company may not proceed with a negligence lawsuit against an adjuster for allegedly botching a claim for hurricane damage. The lawsuit was not filed within the statute of limitations.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Addressed insurance coverage issues in a securities fraud case. Held that the district court abused its discretion in approving a settlement agreement and so-called bar orders. Vacated and remanded for further proceedings, in this case involving a financial firm's massive Ponzi scheme.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. The subject of a legal judgment sought to pursue the doctrine of estoppel to compel their insurer to pay out on the judgment against them from a decade before the policy's active date. They suffered no prejudice from the insurer's action and their case was dismissed.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Reversed and remanded. The district court's entry of summary judgment for a company on a claim of breach of contract against an insurer was overturned because of the court's interpretation of the clause "as reported" to mean a report had been made, rather than referencing events that had already occurred at the time of the drafting.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. Plaintiff was a passenger in an automobile that was involved in an accident. He was not a party to the insurance policy that covered the car, but was an unnamed additional insured. Plaintiff attempted to contact Defendant, the insurer of the car, but was unsuccessful. Plaintiff then reached his own settlement with at-fault driver of the other car. Defendant refused to agree to the settlement and denied coverage to Plaintiff stating that under the terms of the policy, Plaintiff had to have approval from them before settling. The trial court found that Plaintiff was not a party to the insurance contract, did not know the terms of the policy and could not be held to those terms.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Reverse and remand. Defendant advanced the theory that its insurance policy did not cover injuries caused by drunk driving collisions, because they are not “accidents”. The trial court granted summary judgment to Defendant, insurance company, stating that the intentional decision to drive while intoxicated meant the collision was not an accident. The appeals court held that there was nothing in Texas law that would construe the term “accident” in the manner put forth by the Defendant.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Certified Question. The panel certified the question of state law to the Nevada Supreme Court asking whether an insurer is entitled reimbursement of costs already expended in defense of its insured where a determination has been made that the insurer owed no duty to defend and there was an agreement requiring reimbursement, but with no reservation of rights.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed. Plaintiff, a Connecticut attorney, sued Defendants, a group of title insurance companies, for violating a Connecticut law that allows only Connecticut attorneys to act as title agents in the state. The original complaint contained class action allegations under the Class Action Fairness Act, but Plaintiff removed all class-action allegations in a subsequent complaint. The district court held that without the class-act allegations, it no longer had jurisdiction and dismissed the complaint.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed. Trial court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim on the grounds that the claimed agreement entered into with Defendant had not be approved by the Defendant’s governing board as required by New York Town Law, hence there was no valid and enforceable contract.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Allstate Insurance Company brought this action on behalf of the People of the State under Insurance Code section 1871.7. Allstate alleges Defendant guilty of submitting false or fraudulent claims to an insurance company. A jury found in favor of Allstate and imposed over $6 million in civil penalties.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a diversity insurance coverage action, District Court erred in not applying the specialized meaning of terms in an insurance contract, as required by the California Civil Code (here “war” and “warlike action”). Summary judgment in favor of insurer overturned.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. A company found, during a random audit by the Indiana Department of Insurance, to have committed hundreds of regulatory violations that entered into an agreement to pay a fine and relinquish its licenses could not subsequently sue the Department's commissioner alleging discrimination for their out-of-state residency without providing a valid reason to void the agreement.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff brought a class action against Defendant alleging Insurance Code violations and unfair business practices for the insurance rates Defendant charged in its car rental business. The trial court found no illegal or fraudulent business practice or any economic injury. Judgment was entered in favor of the Defendant.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. An insurer was not liable for contractual and statutory violations arising from the denial of a commercial property insurance claim. The suit was untimely because re-investigation by the insurer did not toll the accrual of the cause of action.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Defendant, a chiropractor, was convicted of charges stemming from a scheme to defraud workers’ compensation insurance carriers. On appeal, Defendant claimed several errors at trial including a sentencing error. The appeals court found no abuse of discretion or prejudicial error.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. All insurance claims were properly denied because while the insured gave timely notice of later claims they failed to give notice of an initial claim within the policy's one year coverage limitation.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. An insurer had to replace the siding on an entire building whose south and west sides were damaged by a storm because the old siding was no longer available and the new siding didn't match.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed. Collective bargaining agreement contains unambiguous language vesting welfare benefits and there is a sufficiently serious question as to whether retirees were entitled to lifetime medical coverage. District court’s grant of summary judgement in favor of union retirees is affirmed.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. A subcontractor did not owe a duty to indemnify a company for its expenditures in labor and materials in a construction project.