Allegations from JPMorgan that the insurer acted in bad faith in refusing to cover the bank’s legal costs “are nothing more than a repackaging of JPMorgan’s breach of contract claim and do not state a distinct cause of action,” Federal Insurance Co. and Westchester Fire Insurance Co. said in a filing Monday in the New York Supreme Court, New York County.
JPMorgan sued a number of its primary, umbrella, and excess liability insurers in November 2024, seeking coverage for underlying lawsuits alleging the bank knew about Epstein’s sex-trafficking scheme prior to his conviction and enabled him to pay his victims and co-conspirators.
Among other settlements, JPMorgan in 2023 agreed to pay $290 million to nearly 200 victims. Epstein was a client of JPMorgan’s private bank for more than a decade and had ties to longtime JPMorgan executive Jes Staley.
Although JPMorgan’s total defense and settlement costs triggered all layers of its insurance coverage, the bank in an April amended complaint said its carriers failed to fulfill their contractual duties under policies they issued.
The Chubb units, which provided excess coverage to the bank, argued the bad faith claim against them should be dismissed because it was duplicative of the breach-of-contract claim and JPMorgan failed to plead the requisite elements of bad faith.
Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP represents JPMorgan. Clyde & Co US LLP represents the Chubb units.
The case is JPMorgan Chase & Co. v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co., N.Y. Sup. Ct., No. 659255/2024, Chubb’s motion to dismiss 6/9/25.
To contact the reporter on this story:
To contact the editor responsible for this story:
Learn more about Bloomberg Law or Log In to keep reading:
See Breaking News in Context
Bloomberg Law provides trusted coverage of current events enhanced with legal analysis.
Already a subscriber?
Log in to keep reading or access research tools and resources.