SAN FRANCISCO (LN) — A federal magistrate judge denied a motion to enforce a $0.10 million settlement in an insurance coverage dispute between Belong Inc. and four insurers, ruling the parties never agreed on material terms such as the scope of the release and payment deadlines.
U.S. Magistrate Judge James Donato issued the order on May 14, 2026, in Belong, Inc. v. Accelerant Specialty Insurance Company et al, Case No. 25-cv-01990-JCS.
The insurers — Accelerant Specialty Insurance Company, Scottsdale Indemnity Company, Sentinel Insurance Company Ltd., and Covington Specialty Insurance Company/RSUI Group — argued that a binding agreement was reached on May 12, 2025, when Belong’s counsel accepted a global settlement offer.
Belong’s attorney, Marissa Sinha, had emailed defendants’ counsel Jamison Narbaitz on May 12, 2025, stating: “I have confirmed with Belong that they agree to accept the $0.10 million global settlement offer from all defendants that you extended by phone earlier today.”
Narbaitz responded the same day, writing: “this email confirms that plaintiff has extended the time for defendants to accept plaintiff's global settlement demand of $0.10 million, and that each of the four defendant groups... agrees to accept and will pay a $25,000 contribution to the $0.10 million settlement, subject to the execution of a mutual release including a confidentiality clause.”
The court found that the phrase “subject to the execution of a mutual release” indicated the parties did not intend to be bound until a written agreement was signed.
“Even assuming the writing requirement was met, however, the Court finds that Defendants have not satisfied the second requirement under Section 664.6, that the parties formed a contract by agreeing to the material terms of the settlement,” Donato wrote.
The judge noted that the parties failed to agree on critical details, including whether Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company would be a party to the settlement, the scope of the release, and whether the settlement would include a waiver of unknown claims under California Civil Code section 1542.
The court also highlighted a dispute over payment timing. Belong demanded payment within 14 days, while Accelerant insisted on 30 days for settlement funding.
“None of the subsequent emails from defense counsel suggests that any of the defendants’ counsel intended to bind their clients to any settlement agreement prior to obtaining the approval of their clients to a final version of the settlement agreement and executing that agreement,” Donato wrote.
The ruling comes despite evidence that Scottsdale Indemnity issued a $25,000 check to Belong on May 29, 2025, which Belong cashed on June 4, 2025, and has not returned.
Belong had filed a request to withdraw its notice of settlement on June 12, 2025, citing the insurers’ failure to finalize the agreement and concerns over their handling of other coverage claims.
The case involves Belong’s lawsuit against the insurers for denying defense and indemnity obligations in a class action lawsuit brought against the company.