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
© 2024 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 AllLatham, Finnegan Win $115M Muscular Dystrophy Drug Patent Verdict for Counterclaimant
2 minute readDelaware Supreme Court Adopts Broad Interpretation of Case Law on Anticompetition Provisions
3 minute read3rd Circuit Nominee Mangi Sees 'No Pathway to Confirmation,' Derides 'Organized Smear Campaign'
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Tuesday Newspaper
- 2Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-85
- 3Decision of the Day: Administrative Court Finds Prevailing Wage Law Applies to Workers Who Cleaned NYC Subways During Pandemic
- 4Trailblazing Broward Judge Retires; Legacy Includes Bush v. Gore
- 5Federal Judge Named in Lawsuit Over Underage Drinking Party at His California Home
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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