Insurers Cannot Escape Verizon Judgment, Superior Court Rules
A Delaware judge has ruled that Verizon Communications Inc. is owed $48 million from insurers from having defended a shareholder suit seeking $14 billion over the telecommunication giant's spinoff of its print and electronic directories business in 2006.
May 09, 2018 at 06:26 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Delaware Law Weekly
A Delaware judge has ruled that Verizon Communications Inc. is owed $48 million from insurers from having defended a shareholder suit seeking $14 billion over the telecommunication giant's spinoff of its print and electronic directories business in 2006.
The ruling from Delaware Superior Court Judge William C. Carpenter Jr. on Monday granted final judgment to Verizon in its years-long fight for advancement of defense costs, and shut down an effort by the company's excess insurers to investigate the reasonableness of the costs Verizon had claimed.
Rather, it would be up to the state's high court to ultimately decide the central issue of whether the insurers were in fact responsible for advancing Verizon its costs, Carpenter said.
“It is the court's opinion that it is simply time to stop this litigation Ferris wheel. In spite of the assertions by the defendants to the contrary, the litigation will end only when either the parties accept this court's prior decision or it is affirmed or reversed by the Delaware Supreme Court,” he wrote in a 32-page opinion. “Granting final judgment will allow this path to occur.”
Monday's decision came more than one year after Carpenter ruled that a unit of AIG Inc. and several excess insurers were obligated to pay Verizon more than $48 million related to litigation in a Texas federal court over the company's spinoff of its directories business, which later went bankrupt.
The case, which sought $14 billion in damages against Verizon and executive John Diercksen, was dismissed by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, in a decision that was later upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Key to Carpenter's earlier ruling was the judge's finding that the claims for fraudulent transfer and breach of fiduciary duties in the Texas litigation pertained to laws regulating securities and thus qualified as securities claims under Verizon's primary insurance policy.
Illinois National Insurance Co., the primary insurer and AIG affiliate, later conceded that Verizon was entitled to recovery under the policy; however, excess insurers XL Specialty Insurance Co., Zurich American Insurance Co. and Twin City Fire Insurance Co. held out against Verizon's motion for final judgment, contending that they did not owe anything because the primary insurer had not yet paid Verizon under its policy.
Instead, the insurers argued that another round of discovery was needed to determine whether the amount was reasonable, and they challenged Verizon's position that it was entitled to prejudgment interest on the costs.
On Monday, Carpenter rejected the argument as an attempt to “prolong” the litigation, saying that the excess insurers had never contested a single invoice it had received from Verizon over the course of four years.
“The defendants' position on coverage lived and died on the issue of 'securities claim' and to continue the litigation is not only unreasonable but would condone the excess insurers continual failure to comply with the insurance policies,” Carpenter said.
“As a result, the court believes that the proper and most reasonable decision is to grant final judgment and if the parties desire, let the Supreme Court decide if this court has properly decided the securities claim issue. Otherwise, the excess insurers, who have not challenged a single invoice, would stall this litigation for years at great expense to everyone while reviewing thousands of invoices.”
An attorney for Verizon on Wednesday declined to comment on the decision.
According to Carpenter's ruling, Verizon is entitled to full reimbursement of $48 million, plus prejudgment interest of 5.75 percent from January 2014 to March 24, 2017.
Verizon was represented by Robin Cohen, Keith McKenna and Michelle R. Migdon of McKool Smith's New York offices and Jennifer C. Wasson and Carla M. Jones of Potter Anderson & Corroon in Wilmington.
Illinois National Insurance is represented by Edward M. McNally, Meghan A. Adams, Nicolas Kravitz and Patricia A. Winston of Morris James in Wilmington.
XL Specialty Insurance is represented by Bruce E. Jameson, Kevin H. Davenport and John G. Day of Prickett, Jones & Elliott. Zurich American Insurance is represented by Bruce W. McCullough of Bodell Bove. Twin City Fire Insurance is represented by Joel Friedlander, Christopher M. Foulds and Christopher P. Quinn of Friedlander & Gorris.
The case is captioned Verizon v. Illinois National Insurance.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
- 1New York-Based Skadden Team Joins White & Case Group in Mexico City for Citigroup Demerger
- 2No Two Wildfires Alike: Lawyers Take Different Legal Strategies in California
- 3Poop-Themed Dog Toy OK as Parody, but Still Tarnished Jack Daniel’s Brand, Court Says
- 4Meet the New President of NY's Association of Trial Court Jurists
- 5Lawyers' Phones Are Ringing: What Should Employers Do If ICE Raids Their Business?
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250