Update: A federal district-court judge has denied a group of insurers’ motion to dismiss Coca-Cola’s claim for attorneys’ fees in a cross-border insurance coverage dispute.
As we discussed in a previous post on this case, Coca-Cola alleges that its insurers wrongfully refused to cover nearly $1 million in business-interruption losses it suffered at two bottling plants in Nepal stemming from a blockade of the Nepal-India border. In its Complaint, Coca-Cola brought causes of action for breach of contract and attorneys’ fees, among other relief sought. Coca-Cola’s insurers moved to dismiss its claim for attorneys’ fees on the basis that Coca-Cola had failed to state a claim for which relief may granted.
United State District Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. denied the insurers’ motion to dismiss Coca-Cola’s claim for attorney’s fees, writing that it was “premature at this stage to determine whether the Plaintiff has a claim for attorney fees or not.” In denying the insurers’ motion, the court reminded the insurers that under notice pleading, a policyholder plaintiff “need only give the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claim and the grounds upon which it rests,” citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007).
You can read our previous post on this case here.
You can read the judge’s Order here.
See also Oehninger, Sergio, Co-author, Cross-Border Insurance Coverage, New Appleman Insurance Law, LexisNexis Publishers, September 15, 2016.