COLUMBIA, S.C. — An insurer removed an asbestos coverage dispute “on dubious grounds, hoping to achieve what it perceives to be a more favorable forum,” Covil Corp. tells a South Carolina federal court in a July 7 reply brief, seeking remand of its case, which also involves the South Carolina Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association (SCPCIGA) (Covil Corporation v. Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company, et al., No. 20-1979, D. S.C.).
NEW YORK — Senior Health Insurance Company of Pennsylvania (SHIP), in rehabilitation, asks the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in a July 7 opening brief to reverse orders requiring payment of retrospective and prospective legal fees because investment management agreements (IMAs) contain a narrow indemnification provision (B Asset Manager L.P., et al. v. Senior Health Insurance Company of Pennsylvania, No. 19-3026 & 19-4239, 2nd Cir.).
SAN FRANCISCO — Builders ask the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on July 2 to rehear an insolvent surety’s case alleging that they breached a continuing agreement of indemnification (CAI) by refusing to reimburse claims of $1,925,880.84 because they were not notified of the claims made by two California cities until after submission in the surety’s liquidation (Western Insurance Co. in liquidation v. Frontier Homes LLC, et al., No. 19-55101, 9th Cir.).
NEW YORK — The receiver for hedge funds on July 1 notified a New York federal judge of a $14 million settlement with insurers, including an insolvent one, in a fraudulent conveyance lawsuit concerning three investment management agreements involving a reinsurance company, its related entities and the insurers (In re Platinum-Beechwood Litigation, No. 18-6658, Melanie L. Cyganowski, et al. v. Beechwood Re Ltd., et al., No. 18-12018, S.D. N.Y.).
LAKELAND, Fla. — The Second District Florida Court of Appeal on June 26 upheld the denial of attorney fees to an insured in his sinkhole loss dispute against the Florida Insurance Guaranty Association (FIGA), which eventually made repairs for the insured, citing recent decisions that have certified a question on the similar issue to the Florida Supreme Court (David Rodriguez v. Florida Insurance Guaranty Association, No. 2D19-424, Fla. App., 2nd Dist., 2020 Fla. App. LEXIS 9212).
BATON ROUGE, La. — An insolvent insurer’s CEO argues in a June 25 reply brief that a Louisiana federal court has no jurisdiction over him in a rehabilitator’s suit for aiding and abetting fraud and breach of fiduciary duty as to loans that misled state insurance regulators on the insurer’s finances (James J. Donelon v. Jeffrey C. Pollick, et al., No. 20-177, M.D. La.).
NEW YORK — A federal judge in New York on June 29 granted and denied in part motions to preclude expert testimony in support of claims brought by the liquidators of two hedge funds for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty and fraud in the collapse of the funds in a case awaiting trial (In re Platinum-Beechwood Litigation, No. 18-6658, Martin Trott, et al. v. Platinum Management [NY] LLC, et al., No. 18-10936, S.D. N.Y., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113277).
ST. LOUIS — The receiver for insolvent insurers and state insurance guaranty associations argue to the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in a June 23 appellee brief that a $7,005,337 attorney fees award against banks was allowed based on the Missouri Uniform Trust Code (MUTC), prior trust cases involving equitable balancing and intentional misconduct cases (Jo Ann Howard & Associates P.C., et al. v. National City Bank and PNC Bank, N.A., No. 20-1438, 8th Cir.).
COLUMBIA, S.C. — Covil Corp. asks a South Carolina federal court in a June 16 motion to send its case back to state court to decide a duty to defend from an insurer and the South Carolina Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association (SCPCIGA) on asbestos liabilities (Covil Corporation v. Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company, et al., No. 20-1979, D. S.C.).
GREENVILLE, S.C. — An insurer’s coverage dispute in South Carolina federal court regarding asbestos claims should be dismissed or stayed, Covil Corp. argues in a June 17 reply brief, noting that it has already first-filed a state court action against the insurer and an insolvent excess insurer (Pennsylvania National Mutual Insurance Co. v. Covil Corp., et al., No. 20-1729, D. S.C.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on June 18 remanded an insolvent insurer’s case against the government over Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) risk-corridor funds after a high court ruling allowing the pursuit of billions of dollars in lost payment (Land of Lincoln Mutual Health Insurance Co. v. United States, No. 17-1224, Fed. Cir.).
BOSTON — A First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on June 17 denied an insurer’s liquidator’s motion to stay arbitration with reinsurers in a $150 million hurricane loss case despite the liquidator’s argument that the McCarran Ferguson Act reverse-preempts the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) (Integrand Assurance Co. v. Everest Reinsurance Co., et al., No. 20-1534, 1st Cir.).
RICHMOND, Va. — The Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on June 18 dismissed for the second time two defendants’ attempts to appeal an order that grants in part but largely denies summary judgment on a special deputy receiver’s claims that the defendants conspired to defraud South Carolina Health Cooperative Inc. (SCHC) with fraudulent letters of credit (LOCs) (Michael J. FitzGibbons, et al. v. De’Shaun Williams, et al., Nos. 20-1383 & 20-1384, 4th Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In light of a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling, a U.S. Court of Federal Claims judge on June 12 further stayed a dispute between an insolvent insurer’s liquidators and the U.S. government over an alleged violation of South Carolina insurance law after an offset of $36 million under the reinsurance program of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) (Raymond G. Farmer, et al. v. The United States, No. 18-1484, Fed. Clms.).
NEW YORK — A hearing on a request by Chapter 11 debtor Rapid-American Corp. to sell its rights to priority claims in an insolvent insurer’s liquidation case drew more bidders for the claims, and a New York federal bankruptcy judge on June 11 approved the highest offer received at the hearing, bringing in $108,000 more to the bankruptcy estate (In re: Rapid-American Corporation, No. 13-10687, S.D. N.Y. Bkcy.).
COLUMBIA, S.C. — U.S. Bank National Association on June 15 asked a South Carolina federal judge to deny an insurer’s request for a new trial to amend or alter a judgment that found that the bank is not liable to the insurer for claims and damages arising out of an alleged breach by the bank of its duties as trustee of a reinsurance trust for an insolvent insurance company (Accident Insurance Company Inc. v. U.S. Bank National Association, et al., No. 16-2621, D. S.C.).
LAKELAND, Fla. — A Florida appeals panel on June 12 reversed a $63,144.30 attorney fees award entered against the Florida Insurance Guaranty Association (FIGA), substituting for an insolvent insurer, in a sinkhole loss case (Florida Insurance Guaranty Association v. Daniel Carman, et al., No. 2D19-141, Fla. App., 2nd Dist., 2020 Fla. App. LEXIS 8340).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — An insolvent insurer’s liquidator argues in a June 8 appellee brief to the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that Colorado’s insolvency law prohibits the U.S. government’s offset of payment under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) risk adjustment program against the liquidator’s demand for payment under the ACA’s reinsurance program (Michael Conway v. The United States, No. 20-1292, Fed. Cir.).
COLUMBIA, S.C. — Covil Corp. in a June 4 opposition brief argues to a South Carolina federal court that an insurance agency and the South Carolina Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association (SCPCIGA) are properly aligned as defendants in its coverage dispute concerning the defense of underlying asbestos liabilities (Covil Corporation v. Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company, et al., No. 20-1979, D. S.C.).
HARRISBURG, Pa. — A Pennsylvania federal judge received reply briefs on June 5 from the Pennsylvania Professional Liability Joint Underwriting Association (JUA), the state’s governor and state’s General Assembly on why they should be awarded summary judgment in a case over whether recent legislation violated the JUA’s constitutional rights (Pennsylvania Professional Liability Joint Underwriting Association v. Tom Wolf, et al., No. 19-1121, M.D. Pa.).