Ace American Insurance Company v. Lerma et al
Case Number:
5:23-cv-00539
Court:
Nature of Suit:
Judge:
Firms
-
December 15, 2023
Insurer Says Policy Bars Coverage For Subway Slaying Case
An insurer told a Texas federal court that "anti-concurrent causation" language in a policy held by a Subway franchisee excludes coverage for a $3 million award granted to the family of a murdered employee, even if a covered event contributed to the worker's death.
-
November 16, 2023
No Ruling Yet On Personal Disputes Exclusion, Judge Says
A Texas federal judge rejected motions for dismissal in a coverage fight over a $3 million award granted to the family of a murdered Subway franchisee employee, asking the franchisee and its insurer to further develop their interpretations of case law in summary judgment bids.
-
August 09, 2023
Subway Franchisee Says Agent Misrepresented Coverage
A Subway franchisee hit back against a Chubb unit's effort to exclude a $3 million arbitration award granted to the family of a murdered employee, arguing that the insurer's agent misrepresented the policy during a sales presentation.
-
August 01, 2023
Insurer Seeks Win In Coverage Suit Over Subway Slaying Case
A Chubb unit asked a Texas federal court for an early win in its coverage suit against a Subway franchisee, arguing that a nearly $3 million arbitration award granted to the family of a murdered employee falls under a so-called personal animosity exclusion in its policy.
-
July 10, 2023
Victim's Family Gone From Restaurant Murder Coverage Suit
A Chubb unit agreed to dismiss the family of a murder victim from an insurance coverage lawsuit against a Subway franchisee over a $3 million arbitration award that was recently confirmed in state court, the insurer told a Texas federal court.
-
April 28, 2023
Subway Franchisee Not Covered In Slaying Case, Chubb Says
A Chubb unit doesn't owe coverage for a $3 million lawsuit lodged by the family of a woman who was killed by an ex-boyfriend at the Subway restaurant where she worked, the insurer told a Texas federal court, saying exclusions in the franchisee's policy relieved it of coverage obligations.