BOSTON — The First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals reversed a lower federal court’s denial of an insurer’s postverdict motion to reduce a jury’s $873,000 contractual damages award and to set aside a jury’s $250,000 consequential damages award in a Hurricane Maria coverage dispute and affirmed the lower court’s denial of the insured’s postverdict motion for attorney fees and prejudgment interest.

NEW YORK — The Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court’s dismissal of a putative class complaint accusing the National Football League (NFL) of violating the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) by sharing personal data about users of the NFL’s website, mobile application and video service with a third party, citing Solomon v. Flipps Media, Inc. as “‘binding and dispositive.’”

SAN FRANCISCO —A Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on June 23 found that a California federal judge wrongly dismissed antitrust counterclaims brought by a real estate entity in response to copyright claims filed by another real estate entity that says it misappropriated photos; the panel held that the defendant-appellant adequately established that the plaintiff-appellee engaged in anticompetitive practices for the purposes of surviving dismissal.

SAN DIEGO — A federal judge in California on June 23 held that a business and management indemnity insurer has a duty to defend and indemnify its insured against an underlying unfair dilution lawsuit because the “dilution claims exception” to the “insured vs. insured” exclusion restores directors and officers liability coverage, granting the insured’s motion for summary judgment and denying the insurer’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The federal government filed a motion June 24 in the U.S. Supreme Court seeking clarification of a June 23 stay order in a case by a class of noncitizens who are challenging a policy or practice by the federal government of removing members of the class to a country other than the initial or alternative countries identified in immigration proceedings without first providing an opportunity for them to apply for protection from removal; the motion states that hours after the June 23 order, a federal judge in Massachusetts “issued an order asserting that its related ruling enforcing that injunction ‘remains in full force and effect,’ ‘notwithstanding todays [sic] stay of the Preliminary Injunction.’”

ELGIN, Ill. — An Illinois appeals court panel on June 23 affirmed a lower court’s grant of a homeowners insurer’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in an insured’s breach of contract lawsuit seeking coverage for storm damage, agreeing with the lower court that the insured’s action was not timely under the agreed-upon terms of the insurance policy's one-year suit limitations provision.

SAN FRANCISCO — In an unpublished June 23 memorandum disposition issuing a mixed ruling in a mental health and substance use coverage dispute, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals said that coverage for a wilderness program was properly denied; that coverage for residential treatment was not properly denied but the correct remedy is reprocessing because factual disputes remain; and that an award of nearly $50,000 for attorney fees and costs can’t stand because it was based on determinations that the appellate court reversed.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — A majority of the U.S. Supreme Court on June 23 stayed a preliminary injunction issued by a federal judge in Massachusetts in a case by a class of noncitizens who are challenging a policy or practice by the federal government removing members of the class to a country other than the initial or alternative countries identified in immigration proceedings without first providing an opportunity for them to apply for protection from removal.