KANSAS CITY, Kan. — An investor argues in his Feb. 4 brief that he sufficiently asserts claims for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act and unjust enrichment in a Kansas federal court action alleging that the investment companies depleted life insurers’ surplus assets by reinsuring risks with one another rather than using “arm’s-length reinsurance treaties” (Albert Ogles v. Security Benefit Life Insurance Co., et al., No. 18-02265, D. Kan.).
SAN DIEGO — In separate briefs filed Feb. 1, parties oppose a reinsurer’s request to intervene in their California federal court dispute over a $3.2 million judgment (Odyssey Reinsurance Co. v. Richard Keith Nagby, et al., No. 16-3038, S.D. Calif.).
ST. LOUIS — In a dispute over the mishandling of funds belonging to insolvent funeral insurers, banks argue in a Feb. 1 motion filed in a Missouri federal court that their investment adviser, authorization and an in pari delicto defenses are supported by the law and the evidence in the case (Jo Ann Howard & Associates P.C., et al. v. J. Douglas Cassity, et al., No. 09-01252, E.D. Mo.).
NEW YORK — A reinsurer and its entities argue in a Jan. 29 reply brief that a run-off insurer fails to assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty and fraud in a New York federal court dispute over the alleged mismanagement and misuse of $320 million (Senior Health Insurance Company of Pennsylvania v. Beechwood Re Ltd., et al., No. 18-6658, S.D. N.Y.).
ST. LOUIS — In a Missouri federal court case over the mishandling of insolvent funeral insurers’ funds, a special deputy receiver and state insurance guaranty associations say in a Jan. 28 response that a bank “committed multiple and systemic breaches of trust throughout its six-year tenure as trustee” (Jo Ann Howard & Associates P.C., et al. v. J. Douglas Cassity, et al., No. 09-01252, E.D. Mo.).
MIAMI — A reinsurer in a Jan. 29 motion seeks to dismiss breach of contract, civil theft and unjust enrichment claims filed in a Florida federal court against it in a dispute also involving the government of the Republic of Nicaragua and a Nicaraguan insurer regarding a fire loss (Farouk Morales v. The Government of the Republic of Nicaragua, et al., No. 18-24301, S.D. Fla.).
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. — In a reinsurance coverage dispute over payment for mine subsidence damages, parties on Jan. 25 filed their proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law ahead of a scheduled bench trial in an Illinois federal court (Illinois Mine Subsidence Insurance Fund v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., No. 17-3199, C.D. Ill., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7355).
SAN DIEGO — A trial court improperly apportioned a settlement between heirs and a workers’ compensation insurer without considering which claims the agreement resolved or the employer’s liability, the heirs told a California appeals court on Dec. 26 (Nancy Merris Dufresne, et al. v. Gryphon Aircraft Services LLC, et al., No. E071199, Calif. App., 4th Cir.).
TYLER, Texas — An insurance company tells a Texas appeals court in a Sept. 13 appellant brief that it should be awarded a new trial because a trial court judge erred when not severing an insured’s extracontractual claims from her claim seeking benefits under the underinsured motorist (UIM) provisions of her policy (American National County Mutual Insurance Co. v. Tina Holland, No. 12-18-00141-CV, Texas App., 12th Dist.).
PASADENA, Calif. — An education group and an insurer recently submitted arguments in the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, disputing whether a district court’s order holding that the insurer was not obligated to fund a settlement reached in underlying backdating litigation should be overturned (Apollo Education Group Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh Pa., No. 17-17293, 9th Cir.).
NEW ORLEANS — A company that conducted fracking operations on an insured’s facility has asked the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse a lower court’s dismissal of its allegations that a site pollution legal liability insurer committed breach of contract by seeking indemnity for the $12 million the insurer paid to the insured for environmental damage caused by a June 2014 explosion (Halliburton Energy Services Inc. v. Ironshore Specialty Insurance Co., No. 17-20678 consolidated with No. 18-20239, 5th Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a dispute over a $26 million arbitration award, reinsurers in a Jan. 23 motion seek to dismiss a financial service company’s amended complaint asserting breach of an implied-in-fact contract, promissory estoppel and unjust enrichment claims in a District of Columbia federal court (Vantage Commodities Financial Services I, LLC v. Assured Risk Transfer PCC, LCC, et al., No. 17-01451, D. D.C., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8059).
COLUMBIA, S.C. — A bank sued for its role as trustee of a reinsurance trust for an insolvent insurer argues in Jan. 22 reply briefs that a South Carolina federal court should exclude undisclosed expert and damages testimony, a liability expert and evidence related to government investigations (Accident Insurance Company Inc. v. U.S. Bank National Association, et al., No. 16-2621, D. S.C.).
ATLANTA — The Georgia Supreme Court should deny an insurer’s petition for writ of certiorari because the Georgia Court of Appeals correctly found that defense costs incurred as a result of underlying asbestos claims filed against the insured do not erode the policy limits of two of the insurer’s policies, the insured says in a Dec. 21 response to the insurer’s petition (National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa., et al. v. Scapa Dryer Fabrics Inc., et al., No. BC290354, Ga. Sup., 2018 GA S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 777).
ST. CROIX, Virgin Islands — In the last of a series of motions to dismiss a restaurant insured’s lawsuit over the adjustment of its claim for property damage and business interruption losses arising from looting after Hurricane Maria, an insurance agency in a Jan. 16 filing argues that the material allegations reveal there is no substantive conduct supporting any claims against it (The Doctor and the Professor LLC v. Those Certain Underwriters at Lloyds of London, et al., No. 19-0004, D. V.I.).
ST. LOUIS — An elderly woman who suffers from Alzheimer’s disease tells the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in a brief filed Jan. 2 that a federal judge in South Dakota erred when adopting a report and recommendation suggesting granting her insurance company’s motion for summary judgment, arguing that her long-term care policy did not require the assisted living center at which she was treated to be licensed (Leona Van Dusseldorp v. Continental Casualty Co., et al., No. 18-3257, 8th Cir.).
HONOLULU — After a second amended complaint alleging unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the placement of insurance through “illegal kickback or captive reinsurance arrangements” was dismissed in part, a homeowner, on behalf of herself and others, on Jan. 15 filed a third amended complaint in a Hawaii federal court (Julia Wieck v. CIT Bank, N.A., et al., No. 16-00596, D. Hawaii).
LINCOLN, Neb. — A note holder to a promissory note executed pursuant to a reinsurance participation agreement (RPA) in a Jan. 11 filing opposes a request in Nebraska federal court for class certification of a nationwide class of employers who purchased unlawful workers’ compensation insurance programs and signed related promissory notes because the counterclaims are not typical of a class (Applied Underwriters Inc. v. Top’s Personnel Inc., No. 15-90, D. Neb.).
RICHMOND, Va. — A federal appeals court is set to decide whether a medical malpractice insurer should have defended against liability when the insured left the country, or whether its insured’s failure to communicate prevented it from mounting a defense in his shoes (Claudia M. Mora, et al. v. Lancet Indemnity Risk Retention Group Inc., No. 18-1566, 4th Cir.).
ATLANTA — Two insureds are asking the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse a lower court’s ruling and find that their rot coverage claim was wrongly dismissed because the defendants did not move for its dismissal. They also contend that the lower court committed “legal error” by denying their motion for reconsideration (The S.O. Beach Corp., et al. v. Great American Insurance Company of New York, No. 18-11967, 11th Cir.).