Zurich off hook in real estate company dispute

A unit of Zurich Insurance Group Ltd. A real estate investment asset and property management company involved in a lawsuit with a shareholder’s widow does not have to cover for late filing its lawsuit, a federal appeals court said on Friday, upholding a lower court ruling.

A partner of Washington, DC-based UIP Cos. LLC, which specializes in multi-family homes in the Washington metro area, died in April 2015 and his widow, Marion Coster, inherited his 50 percent interest in the companies from the District of Columbia Circuit US Court of Appeals in the Zurich American Insurance Co. v UIP Companies LLC.

Ms Coster entered into negotiations with UIP management to obtain compensation for her ownership interests in UIP, but negotiations went awry, the decision said.

In February 2018, Ms Coster’s lawyer emailed UIP’s lawyer suggesting how the dispute could be settled. In the summer of 2018, Ms. Coster filed three lawsuits against UIP and its clients, two in the Delaware Chancery Court and the third in the US District Court for the District of Columbia. This litigation is still pending.

UIP filed a notice of Ms. Coster’s lawsuits with Zurich American Insurance Co., a unit of Zurich Insurance Group, in March 2019, nearly nine months after Ms. Coster filed her first lawsuit against UIP, and almost seven months after Ms. Costar had filed her third lawsuit, the judgment, said.

Zurich denied coverage on the grounds that its policies required a claim to be filed “as soon as possible” after the insured first learned of the claim, but “in no event” no later than 90 days after the end of the relevant period of insurance .

UIP filed a complaint in the District Court in Washington, DC, seeking coverage. The court ruled in favor of the insurer and was upheld by a unanimous three-judge appeals court.

The attorney’s statement from February 2018 “qualifies as a claim within the meaning of the Zurich policies,” it said.

“UIP alleges that its clients did not know Zurich’s policies covered the lawsuits until months after it was filed. But the rule in the “District of Columbia” is that an insured “must be aware of a challenge to his policy,” it said, citing a previous ruling and upholding the lower court’s decision.

The lawyers in the case did not comment.