ST. PAUL, Minn. — A Minnesota appeals court affirmed a lower court’s ruling that an insurer has a duty to defend its insured against an underlying negligent supervision claim arising from an altercation between two of the insured’s employees, concluding that it is at least arguable that the negligent supervision claim satisfied the insurance policy’s requirement that the bodily injury must both arise out of and be in the course of the employee’s employment with the insured.

BOSTON — Resolving cross-appeals in a presumptive total disability insurance case where the claimant partly prevailed after a jury trial and a bench trial, the Massachusetts Appeals Court issued a summary decision declining to disturb any of the challenged rulings but concluding that the claimant was entitled to unspecified attorney fees and expenses in defending against the insurer’s appeal as to a state law claim.

RICHMOND, Va. — Affirming judgments in favor of a Maryland man who alleged that his religious employer violated federal and state discrimination laws by terminating dependent health insurance benefits for his same-sex spouse, a split Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel held that neither state nor federal statutes nor the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution “provide such broad immunity” to shield the employer “from liability because its discriminatory action is rooted in its sincerely held religious beliefs.”

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 19 granted certiorari in an organization’s challenge of a Montgomery County, Md., magnet middle school’s admissions criteria adopted during the COVID-19 pandemic for an admissions lottery as opposed to in-person testing; the organization asserted that the COVID-era lottery system made it more difficult for Asian-American students in high-performing, low-poverty elementary schools to access the lottery.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 19 asked retirees to respond to three certiorari petitions filed over two similar rulings that revived putative class suits on the grounds that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act requires the use of “reasonable” actuarial assumptions when calculating certain pension benefits.

PHOENIX — After the Arizona Supreme Court answered a certified question in a case regarding structural damage insurance coverage and set the fortuity standard, a Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel vacated a trial court’s summary judgment ruling for the insurer and remanded the case for further proceedings under the Arizona Supreme Court’s newly articulated standard.

SAN FRANCISCO — A Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel vacated a California federal judge’s ruling certifying three classes of drivers suing Tesla Inc. and its affiliates for unfairly marketing cars as having “self-driving” technology in violation of California’s unfair competition law (UCL) and other laws, writing that the lower court “erred by inferring” that an entire class was exposed to allegedly deceptive statements by Tesla regarding the ability of hardware in its cars to provide full self-driving (FSD).

SEATTLE — A Washington federal judge on Oct. 19 granted a motion to compel appraisal filed by insureds in a water damage coverage dispute, rejecting a homeowners insurer’s argument that appraisal is not appropriate because the parties have not agreed on what needs to be repaired or replaced in the home.