Law360 is providing free access to its coronavirus coverage to make sure all members of the legal community have accurate information in this time of uncertainty and change. Use the form below to sign up for any of our weekly newsletters. Signing up for any of our section newsletters will opt you in to the weekly Coronavirus briefing.
Sign up for our Class Action newsletter
You must correct or enter the following before you can sign up:
Thank You!
Law360 (December 15, 2020, 9:18 PM EST ) The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation created an MDL on Tuesday to centralize 12 lawsuits accusing the Assicurazioni Generali Group of failing to pay policyholders for trips canceled because of COVID-19, sending the cases to the Southern District of New York where the Italian company's American unit is headquartered.
Attorneys for some of the policyholders differed over where the cases should be grouped, while some also petitioned the panel to be left out of the MDL, but the panel said centralization of the cases in New York is appropriate for multiple reasons.
"The actions involve common factual issues arising from Generali travel insurance coverage that consumers purchased alongside rental housing on vacation rental websites," the panel said.
The panel added, "Plaintiffs contend that they were unable to travel during the COVID-19 pandemic and canceled their trips. Generali allegedly has denied coverage under the policies, which appear to be a part of a common form. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; avoid inconsistent pretrial rulings, particularly on class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary."
As to the choice of New York over other possible locations — including the Eastern District of Texas, the Southern District of California or Western District of Pennsylvania — the panel said Generali's U.S. branch is in New York and co-defendant Generali Global Assistance Inc. is a New York corporation.
"Relevant discovery (including witnesses, the master insurance policy and other documents) is likely to be found [in New York]," the panel said.
The MDL includes a proposed class action filed in June in New York federal court by Howard Morris accusing Assicurazioni Generali of wrongfully withholding premiums for canceled trips despite the policyholder's "numerous requests," giving out vouchers that require rebooking by the end of the year instead.
In another proposed class action filed in July, Tralisa Sheridan of Texas sued Generali over the insurer's refusal to cover canceled road trips and accommodations for her daughter's wedding in Florida. She alleged that Generali had promised to send "detailed explanations" for the coverage denial but never did.
A proposed class action filed in Kansas federal court in August alleges that Generali U.S. refused to provide reimbursements for a canceled road trip and accommodations in Texas, only offering a voucher that the policyholder never requested.
During a video conference hearing conducted before the panel earlier this month, attorneys for two policyholders opposed their suits being included in any MDL, citing substantial factual differences between their cases and the others. Generali's attorney, Archis Parasharami of Mayer Brown LLP, likewise cautioned the JPML that discovery in the dozen cases would be "overwhelmingly plaintiff-specific."
But the panel rejected both arguments Tuesday. "Including potential tag-along actions, there are 12 overlapping putative nationwide class actions against Generali pending in nine districts," the panel said. "With all actions in their initial stages, the benefits of centralization can be obtained from the outset before potentially inconsistent pretrial rulings arise."
For the two policyholders opposing centralization, the panel said that "if, after close scrutiny" the transferee judge "determines that continued inclusion of these actions, or any other action, in the MDL is no longer advisable, then they can be remanded to their Section 1407 transferor courts with a minimum of delay."
Counsel for Morris, Sheridan and Generali did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Morris opposed the MDL while Sheridan supported consolidation in the Eastern District of Texas.
Sheridan is represented by Derek Potts of Potts Law Firm.
Morris is represented by David E. Kovel of Kirby McInerney LLP.
Generali is represented by Archis Parasharami of Mayer Brown LLP.
The case is In Re: Generali COVID-19 Travel Insurance Litigation, MDL No. 2968, before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.
--Additional reporting by Jeff Sistrunk. Editing by Bruce Goldman.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
