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 AllSoft-Spoken But No-Nonsense: Retired Del. Supreme Court Justice Vaughn Dead at 75
3 minute readThe Del. Supreme Court Could Make the Next Big Move in Anticompetitive Agreements. Here's How.
4 minute readSkadden Partners: String of Securities Wins Highlights Cross-Border Practice
3 minute readCorporate Bankruptcies Slow Down in Q3 as Weil, Davis Polk and Sidley Earn Major Retentions
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Dechert partners Andrew J. Levander, Angela M. Liu and Neil A. Steiner have stepped in to defend Arbor Realty Trust and certain executives in a pending securities class action. The complaint, filed July 31 in New York Eastern District Court by Levi & Korsinsky, contends that the defendants concealed a 'toxic' mobile home portfolio, vastly overstated collateral in regards to the company's loans and failed to disclose an investigation of the company by the FBI. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-05347, Martin v. Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Arthur G. Jakoby, Ryan Feeney and Maxim M.L. Nowak from Herrick Feinstein have stepped in to defend Charles Dilluvio and Seacor Capital in a pending securities lawsuit. The complaint, filed Sept. 30 in New York Southern District Court by the Securities and Exchange Commission, accuses the defendants of using consulting agreements, attorney opinion letters and other mechanisms to skirt regulations limiting stock sales by affiliate companies and allowing the defendants to unlawfully profit from sales of Enzolytics stock. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr., is 1:24-cv-07362, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Zhabilov et al.
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. et al.
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