NEW YORK — In a run-off insurer’s case over misuse allegations of $320 million with affiliates of a failed Ponzi scheme, a New York federal judge on May 13 denied summary judgment to the affiliates on their counterclaim for advancement of expenses incurred in connection with this lawsuit because investment management agreements (IMAs) do not indemnify expenses incurred in this lawsuit (In re: Platinum-Beechwood Litigation; Senior Health Insurance Company of Pennsylvania v. Beechwood Re Ltd., et al., No. 18-6658, and David Levy v. Senior Health Insurance Company of Pennsylvania, No. 19-3211, S.D. N.Y., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81271).
NEW YORK — A defendant argues in a May 10 motion that a New York federal court should dismiss two hedge funds’ liquidators’ second amended complaint (SAC) with regard to allegations in connection “with one of the most spectacular hedge fund collapses” (Martin Trott, et al. v. Platinum Management [NY] LLC, et al., No. 18-10936, S.D. N.Y.).
SANTA ANA, Calif. — A California appeals panel on May 10 affirmed a trial judge’s dismissal of an insolvent insurer’s sole shareholder’s lawsuit alleging constitutional violations because the shareholder failed to file an action and prosecute claims in Hawaii, where the insurer’s liquidation order was filed, for more than seven years (Investors Equity Life Holding Co. v. Jeffrey P. Schmidt, et al., No. G054532, Calif. App., 4th Dist., Div. 3, 2019 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 3276).
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico — A Puerto Rico federal magistrate judge on May 9 declined an insurance guaranty association’s motion to intervene or stay a personal injury lawsuit because the case does not include an insolvent insurer as a real party of interest (Ángel Aguirre, et al. v. The Salvation Army Corp., No. 17-2192, D. Puerto Rico, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79609).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The United States told the Supreme Court on May 8 that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s risk corridor never entitled insurers — some of them now defunct — to subsidies and that Congress’ latter actions erased any duty the law imposed (Land of Lincoln Mutual Health Insurance Co. v. United States, No. 18-1038, Moda Health Plan Inc., et al. v. United States, No. 18-1028, Maine Community Health Options v. United States, No. 18-1023, U.S. Sup.).
ST. LOUIS — A beneficiary to a preneed cemetery trust and the trustee respond on May 2 to arguments by the special deputy receiver (SDR) for three insolvent insurers raised in a Missouri federal court over whether a merchandise and services trust remains property of a receivership proceeding (Winner Road Properties LLC v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A. v. Jo Ann Howard & Associates, P.C., No. 16-1395, E.D. Mo.).
CHICAGO — An insolvent insurer’s liquidator asked an Illinois federal court on May 3 to vacate or modify a $437,000 attorney fees award in a reinsurer’s case seeking confirmation of that award because the arbitration panel “exceeded their powers” and the award “manifestly disregards the law” (Catalina Holdings (Bermuda) Ltd. v. Jennifer Hammer, No. 18-5642, N.D. Ill.).
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico — The Puerto Rico Guaranty Association of Miscellaneous Insurance on May 1 asked a Puerto Rico federal judge to grant it leave to reply to a plaintiff’s opposition to allowing its intervention in a personal injury lawsuit on behalf of an insolvent insurer (Brenda Lee Maduro Colon v. Coca-Cola Puerto Rico Bottlers, No. 17- 01591. D. Puerto Rico).
NEW YORK — A businessman argues in an April 23 motion filed in a New York federal court that two hedge funds’ liquidators failed to “present a coherent narrative” to support a “guilt by association approach” to allegations in connection “with one of the most spectacular hedge fund collapses” (Martin Trott, et al. v. Platinum Management [NY] LLC, et al., No. 18-10936, S.D. N.Y.).
CONCORD, N.H. — A New Hampshire trial judge recently approved a $27 million settlement between the liquidator of The Home Insurance Co. and federal government claimants as well as a separate reinsurance commutation agreement in the amount of $1.3 million between the liquidator and a reinsurer (In the matter of the liquidation of The Home Insurance Co., No. 03-E-0106, N.H. Super., Merrimack Co.).
OKLAHOMA CITY — An Oklahoma trial judge on April 16 established deadlines for objections to Petrosurance Casualty Co.’s receiver’s 11th report on claims evaluation (State of Oklahoma v. Petrosurance Casualty Co., No. CJ-2002-1800, Okla. Dist., Okla. Co.).
TRENTON, N.J. — Broadway Insurance & Surety Co. Inc. was ordered into rehabilitation on March 22 by a New Jersey judge (Marlene Caride v. Broadway Insurance & Surety Company Inc., No. MER-C-86-18, N.J. Super., Mercer Co., Chanc. Div.).
NEW YORK — In an opinion setting forth reasons for a “bottom-line” order, a New York federal judge held April 22 that a run-off insurer’s claims for violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act are barred under Section 107 of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (RICO Amendment) (Senior Health Insurance Company of Pennsylvania v. Beechwood Re Ltd., et al., No. 18-6658, S.D. N.Y., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67952).
ST. LOUIS — Responding to a Missouri federal judge’s second memorandum and order with instructions, the special deputy receiver (SDR) for three insolvent insurers on April 22 argues that a merchandise and services trust remains property of a receivership proceeding subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the receivership court and that the SDR’s settlement with a beneficiary to a preneed cemetery trust did not effect that status (Winner Road Properties LLC v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A. v. Jo Ann Howard & Associates, P.C., No. 16-1395, E.D. Mo.).
NEW YORK — The First Department New York Supreme Court Appellate Division on April 18 reversed a stay of a negligence case based upon a liquidation order against an insolvent risk retention group because the order did not mention the insureds (Marjorie Givens, et al. v. Kingsbridge Heights Care Center Inc., et al., No. 25103/15E, N.Y. Sup., App. Div., 1st Dept., 2019 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2969).
NEW YORK — An asbestos personal injury settlement trust can pursue the full limits of excess policies issued by an insolvent insurer, the First Department New York Supreme Court Appellate Division affirmed April 18 because the coverage dispute is governed by the “all sums” method of allocation (In re liquidation of Midland Insurance Co.; The ASARCO Asbestos Personal Injury Settlement Trust v. Superintendent of Financial Services of the State of New York, No. 41294/86, N.Y. Sup., App. Div., 1st Dept., 2019 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2952).
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — A Florida trial judge on March 29 set the bar date for claims in the receivership proceeding for Physicians United Plan Inc. as the date of her order (In re: The receivership of Physicians United Plan Inc., No. 2014-CA-1472, Fla. Cir., 2nd Jud., Leon Co.).
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico — In its surreply, an insurer asks in an April 12 surreply that a Puerto Rico federal judge reject a reinsurer’s motion to dismiss or compel arbitration of the insurer’s lawsuit regarding hurricane losses, citing its potential rehabilitation proceedings (Integrand Assurance Co. v. Everest Reinsurance Co., et al., No. 19-01111, D. Puerto Rico).
NEW YORK — A New York justice on April 1 granted an insured’s motion to dismiss an insurer’s declaratory judgment suit arising out of coverage for underlying asbestos claims after determining that the insurer failed to provide any evidence that it is entitled to reimbursement of defense costs paid on behalf of the insured based on the insured’s settlement with a liquidator handling the insolvency of another insurer (Zurich American Insurance Co. v. Blackman Plumbing Supply Co. Inc., No. 650059/2018, N.Y. Sup., New York Co., 2019 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1694).
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — A claims bar date was issued for March 15 in the receivership proceedings for Universal Health Care Insurance Co. Inc. (UHCIC) and Universal Health Care Inc. (UHC), a Florida trial judge said in an order issued the same day (In re: The receivership of Universal Health Care Insurance Company Inc., No. 2013-CA-00358 & In re: The receivership of Universal Health Care Inc., No. 2013-CA-00375, Fla. Cir., Leon Co., 2nd Jud.).