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 Insurance newsletter
You must correct or enter the following before you can sign up:
Thank You!
Law360 (June 17, 2020, 6:43 PM EDT) -- A proposed class of skiers is asking the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to consolidate in Arkansas seven lawsuits alleging insurance companies wrongfully denied claims for canceled ski trips because of COVID-19, saying that grouping the suits together will prevent inconsistent rulings and duplicated efforts.
The lead plaintiff in one of those suits currently in Arkansas federal court, James Bradley, said there are common facts and allegations among the seven suits that make them ideal for consolidation into multidistrict litigation.
In each case, the plaintiffs allege that they bought optional insurance for their ski passes at Vail Resorts or Alterra Mountain Co., intended to cover the costs of those passes if the trips had to be canceled. Each made a claim after government-mandated shutdowns over the COVID-19 pandemic closed the resorts, but were denied, according to the motion.
"While centralization requires only a single common question of law or fact, there is a clear overlap in this instance between the various claims and allegations," Bradley said. "Each related action alleges an insurance company effectively denying insurance coverage for losses resulting from the closure of ski resorts due to COVID-19."
One case initially named Vail Resorts as a defendant, before voluntarily dismissing the company from the suit.
The seven cases name Arch Insurance Co., United Specialty Insurance Co., American Claims Management and Beecher Carlson Insurance LLC as defendants, and were filed in Arkansas, Colorado, California, New Jersey, Missouri and Utah.
While the plaintiffs in each case may have sued different insurance companies, each suit arises out of "virtually identical" facts, Bradley told the JPML, adding that he expects more suits along the same lines to be filed in the coming months that could also be rolled into the MDL.
Overlapping prosecution of the cases in separate courts would increase the risk of inconsistent rulings, he said, adding that the proposed classes in the cases have significant overlap.
In addition, each case is still new enough that document production and depositions have not taken place, nor have there been any substantial rulings, Bradley told the JPML. Because the cases would involve the production of "virtually identical documents and witnesses," Bradley said they are ideal for consolidation.
Representatives for the proposed classes and the insurance companies could not immediately be reached for comment Wednesday.
Bradley is represented by Derek H. Potts of The Potts Law Firm LLP.
The other plaintiffs are represented by attorneys from Miller Schirger LLC, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP, Bursor & Fisher PA, Dovel & Luner LLP, The Potts Law Firm LLP and Gridley Ward & Hamilton.
Counsel information for the insurance companies was not available.
The case is In Re: National Ski Pass Insurance Litigation, MDL Number 1:20-P-113, in the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.
--Additional reporting by Hailey Konnath. Editing by Steven Edelstone.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
