A federal court in Illinois recently ruled the alleged misuse of Tax Increment Financing Redevelopment Act (the “TIF Act”) monies by the City of Marion, Illinois did not allege covered “loss” under the policy of BatesCarey LLP’s client, U.S. Specialty Insurance Company, even when USSIC withdrew from its initial agreement to provide a defense without a reservation of rights.  City of Marion, Illinois v. U.S. Specialty Insurance Company, Case No. 12-cv-0999-SCW (S.D. Ill.  April 30, 2013).

Village of Crestwood v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. (Ill. Cir. Ct. 2012) (September 2012), aff’d (Ill. App. 1st)) 

A municipality and its former mayors knowingly mixed contaminated well water with clean water resulting in numerous wrongful death and bodily injury lawsuits. The client insurer had issued multiple policies to the municipality. BatesCarey LLP moved for summary judgment, contending that the pollution exclusion in the client's policies precluded any duty to defend or indemnify. The municipality filed a competing motion. After extensive briefing, an Illinois state court agreed with BatesCarey LLP's position and granted summary judgment to BatesCarey LLP's client.

Confidential

BatesCarey LLP represented a reinsurer that commutated numerous claims with one of its cedents. Its valuation was based on its assessment of its cedent's reserves. After agreement on a total commutation value, BatesCarey LLP's client allocated its total payment to individual claims based on its reserves for each claim, and in turn billed its reinsurers on that basis. BatesCarey LLP pursued arbitration on behalf of its client and recovered the full amount of its client's billing plus interest.

Smith v. Rail Link (District Court of Wyoming 2011) (February 2011), aff’d (10th Cir. 2012)

The plaintiff injured her ankle while on the job and obtained workers' compensation benefits. She attempted to increase her recovery by filing a FELA claim against both her employer, a rail switching company, and a parent company. BatesCarey LLP successfully moved for summary judgment on the grounds that FELA did not apply to the rail switching company and that FELA did not apply to the parent company because it was not the claimant's employer. A Wyoming federal court agreed with BatesCarey LLP's positions and granted summary judgment in favor of BatesCarey LLP's client. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the trial court's decision and issued its first published decision addressing these issues.

Lenex Steel Co. v. Rockhill Ins. Co. (Ill. Cir. Ct. 2012) 

The insured was obligated to pay a $1.2 million settlement of an underlying bodily injury claim. The insured and one of its primary insurers argued that "additional insured" coverage applied under the client's umbrella policy, and that the client was therefore obligated to contribute to the settlement. Adopting BatesCarey LLP's reasoning, an Illinois state court held that the client umbrella insurer had no obligation to contribute to the settlement because all primary coverage, including the insured's own primary coverage, was not exhausted. The court not only granted summary judgment, but at BatesCarey LLP's request it also sanctioned the insured and its counsel for pursuing a frivolous lawsuit by awarding the client its reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

Alfred Siegel v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds (C.D. Cal. 2011)

A California federal court agreed with BatesCarey LLP's arguments that a declaratory judgment action filed by IndyMac Bancorp's bankruptcy trustee was "non-core" to the bankruptcy. Therefore the court found that judicial efficiency supported withdrawing the reference to the bankruptcy court. After the reference was withdrawn, the trustee voluntarily dismissed the action.

Kevin Fox v. Will County State’s Atty. (N.D. Ill. 2011)

BatesCarey LLP's client issued an excess policy to an insured county, which was sued, along with two sheriff deputies, for civil rights violations by a man falsely accused of murder. The primary insurer paid for the county's and deputies' defense, which resulted in an uncovered multi-million dollar punitive damage award. The insured's assignee argued that the excess insurer had failed in bad faith to accept a settlement offer and was required to pay the punitive damage award. BatesCarey LLP argued that the excess insurer did not control the defense and thus could not have breached any duty to settle. An Illinois federal court adopted BatesCarey LLP's reasoning on summary judgment and held that the excess insurer was not obligated to pay the punitive damage award.

Pacific Emp. Ins. Co. v. GLOBAL Reinsurance Corp. (E.D. Pa. 2011)

BatesCarey LLP obtained judgment for its reinsurer client by convincing a federal court that the "follow the fortunes" doctrine did not require the reinsurer to pay expenses in addition to the limits of liability on a facultative certificate. By moving for judgment on the pleadings, BatesCarey LLP foreclosed the cedent from taking any discovery and obtained victory immediately after the cedent filed its responsive pleading.

Arrowood Surplus Liurancenes Ins. Co. v. Westport (D. Conn. 2010) (January 2010), aff’d (2d Cir. 2010)

The cedent sought reinsurance for $6.7 million for claims that arose from occurences taking place after the termination of the reinsurance contract. The cedent argued that the "follow the fortunes" doctrine bound the reinsurer to pay any claims under a reinsurance policy, regardless of the reinsurance contract limitations. The district and appellate courts, however, fully agreed with BatesCarey LLP's argument that the client reinsurer had only agreed to cover risks insured by the cedent during the time limits of the reinsurance contract.