October 28, 2020

Volume X, Number 302

Advertisement

October 27, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

October 26, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

MDL Panel Considers Mini-MDLs For COVID-19 Insurance Cases

Earlier this year, lawyers for plaintiffs applied to the MDL Panel for consolidation of all COVID-19 business interruption cases in federal courts throughout the country.  On August 12, the Panel rejected plaintiffs’ requests for a single consolidation but requested briefing on the possibility of mini-MDLS as respects five of the insurers that accounted for approximately one third of these cases: Lloyds (26 actions), Cincinnati (70 actions), Hartford (130 actions), Society Insurance (24 actions) and Travelers (45 actions).  On Thursday, September 24, the Panel held a nearly three-hour hearing.

Most of the plaintiffs’ lawyers argued that policy language and state law was effectively the same for all the cases, that their clients were facing a crisis, that having to deal with a motion to dismiss process around the country with insurers filing essentially identical motions was inefficient and would lead to conflicting rulings, that common discovery issues and expert expense would be substantial, and that delay would be considerable.  While most were aligned on the need for coordination, they each had their own thoughts on the appropriate courts for an MDL, often proposing specific judges.

23 policyholders filed briefs opposing consolidation, and counsel for several of them appeared at oral argument.  They argued that their cases were already moving ahead expeditiously, that the cases turned on state law anyway, and that consolidation, which would require consideration of different claims, policies and state laws, would considerably delay the process.  This said, as a fallback, if there was to be a consolidation, they requested it be in the court where their own individual cases were currently pending.

Insurer counsel argued for cases to be heard locally in the courts chosen by plaintiffs’ attorneys, that these courts were familiar with the operative state law which governed, that different civil authority orders were issued in each jurisdiction (if at all), that many of the policy forms were different, and that each plaintiff’s claim and damages needed to be assessed separately.

Some judges appeared skeptical of the request to consolidate, stating, for example, that they never used MDLs for pure questions of law as this appeared to be, that many cases (in fact, two-thirds) were still in the state court system, that policies differed, that damages differed as well, and that the issues would need to be decided by state courts anyway.

Other judges asked questions suggesting that they might have seen the matter differently, volunteering their view that all policies and state law were pretty much the same and asking those opposed to consolidation why consolidation wouldn’t be the most efficient path.  As one commented, since each of insurer was filing essentially the identical motions to dismiss in each of their cases, it made sense to deal with them all at one time.

The Panel tends to issue decisions quickly and a decision can reasonably be expected in October.

Copyright © 2020, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP. All Rights Reserved.National Law Review, Volume X, Number 269
Advertisement

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS

Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Scott DeVries Insurance Lawyer Hunton Andrews Kurth Law Firm
Special Counsel

An experienced trial lawyer, Scott routinely represents clients throughout the country facing insurance recovery issues, as well as in class and mass torts, product liability and complex civil litigation at both the trial and appellate levels.

Scott has more than 30 years of experience in high-value complex disputes for companies faced with major business litigation involving contracts, insurance rights and recovery, environmental claims and toxic torts/class actions. He has a nationwide practice, frequently appearing in court at both the trial and appellate levels, trying some of...

415-975-3720
Michael S. Levine Insurance Lawyer Hunton Andrews Kurth
Partner

Mike has more than 20 years of experience litigating insurance disputes and advising clients on insurance coverage matters.

Mike Levine is a partner in the firm’s Washington, DC office and a member of the firm’s Insurance Recovery team. Mike’s policyholder representation focuses on:

  • Property damage and business interruption claims, including COVID-19 losses
  • Event cancellation insurance counseling
  • Representations and warranties coverage
  • Commercial, professional, corporate and employment liabilities under CGL, pollution, E&O, D&O and EPLI insurance policies

Mike has spent his entire career advising clients about insurance and handling insurance coverage disputes. As a young lawyer, Mike represented the insurance industry in some of the highest-stakes matters, including the property, liability and appraisal proceedings arising from the Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center. Mike has devoted the latter half of his career to helping policyholders obtain the insurance recoveries they deserve, where Mike leverages his substantial insurance industry experience to maximize his clients’ insurance recoveries.

In recent years, Mike has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars of insurance proceeds for clients under general liability, property, directors and officers, cyber, errors and omissions, employment, environmental, and representations and warranties insurance coverages.

202 955 1857
Patrick McDermott Insurance Litigation Richmond VA
Counsel

Patrick counsels clients on all aspects of insurance and reinsurance coverage. He assists clients in obtaining appropriate coverage and represents clients in resolving disputes over coverage, including in litigation and arbitration.

During law school, Patrick served as a judicial intern for the Honorable Michael F. Urbanski in the US District Court for the Western District of Virginia and for the Honorable Ricardo M. Urbina of in US District Court for the District of Columbia.

804-788-8707
Advertisement
Advertisement