Insurers sued by Justin Baldoni for allegedly refusing to pay his legal bills during litigation with Blake Lively are asking a judge to dismiss the actor’s claims wholly or in part, but Baldoni’s attorneys are seeking, through their own motion, a ruling that the insurers did indeed have a duty to provide a defense.
The actor and director’s Los Angeles Superior Court lawsuit stems from the 2024 film “It Ends With Us.” He is suing insurers of the film for allegedly denying to pay the costs of litigation stemming from Lively’s underlying suit and Baldoni’s countersuit.
In the lawsuit filed last, July 30, Baldoni and his production company, Wayfarer Studios LLC, contend the underwriters breached a contract to defend and indemnity the plaintiffs against lawsuits such as that filed by the Lively, the film’s co-star. In the New York-based litigation, Lively alleged Baldoni and people associated with him tried to malign her after she reported on-set sexual harassment.
Baldoni filed a $400 million countersuit alleging that Lively’s accusations were baseless have caused serious harm to his career, reputation and personal life. A judge dismissed the countersuit in November and the pair settled her lawsuit in May.
On Thursday, attorneys for New York Marine and General Insurance Co. and QBE Insurance Corp. filed court papers asking Judge James I. Montgomery to dismiss all of Baldoni’s claims or at minimum some of them.
“The underlying action does not allege any claim potentially within the scope of coverage afforded by the applicable insuring agreements … and, even if it did, all of the claims are employment-related and the employment-related practices exclusion therefore applies to fully preclude coverage,” the New York Marine lawyers argue in their court papers.
In their pleadings QBE attorneys make a similar argument, stating that Lively alleged workplace sexual harassment, retaliation, and other wrongful conduct against Baldoni and Wayfarer, arising directly from her employment as the lead actress in the production of a film.
But in their motion, the Baldoni-Wayfarer lawyers state that the two insurers indeed had a duty to defend the plaintiffs in the Lively litigation.
“What is not clear is why the insurers chose to run for cover, rather than coverage,” the Baldoni-Wayfarer lawyers write in their pleadings.
Hearings on the various motions are scheduled in November.