BOSTON — An insured in an Oct. 1 motion opposes an insurer’s motion to dismiss its bad faith lawsuit alleging that the insurer has made no payment on almost half of its 228 claims for a total of $39.6 million in damage caused by Hurricane Maria, arguing that the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction “is an exercise in misdirection away from” its contacts with the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Capital Crossing Servicing Company LLC v. MAPFRE Praico Insurance Company, No. 19-11157, D. Mass.).
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico — Shareholders and officers of an insolvent insurer “disguise” their first amended complaint as one for civil conspiracy to deprive constitutional rights but are actually attempting to “collaterally attack” the insurer’s liquidation proceedings, the Puerto Rico insurance commissioner and others argue in an Oct 1. motion to dismiss in Puerto Rico federal court (Victor J. Salgado and Associates Inc., et al. v. Javier Rivera-Rios, et al., No. 19-1663, D. Puerto Rico).
NEW YORK — A runoff insurer in a Sept. 23 opposition asks a New York federal court not to dismiss its third-party complaint against a defendant for aiding and abetting a Ponzi-like scheme in which fraudulent misrepresentations were made to gain investment control and discretion over $320 million of the runoff insurer’s reserves because the defendant “attempts to minimize his role” in the scheme and “makes a concerted effort to dispute the factual allegations against him” (In re Platinum-Beechwood litigation, No. 18-6658; Senior Health Insurance Company of Pennsylvania v. Beechwood Re Ltd., et al., No. 18-6658; Martin Trott, et al. v. Platinum Management [NY] LLC, et al., No. 18-10936, Melanie L. Cyganowski v. Beechwood Re Ltd., et al., Senior Health Insurance Company of Pennsylvania v. Beechwood Re Ltd., et al., and Senior Health Insurance Company of Pennsylvania v. PB Investment Holdings Ltd., et al., No. 18-12018, S.D. N.Y.).
JASPER, Ala. — In a woman’s lawsuit against a city and its employees over sexual misconduct allegations in a jail, the city’s insurer on Sept. 19 seeks dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction of a claim that the woman is a judgment creditor as an assignee of the insurer’s rights under reinsurance agreements (Whitley Goodson v. J.C. Poe Jr., et al., No. 19-1399, N.D. Ala.).
UTICA, N.Y. — A reinsurer on Sept. 27 filed several motions for judgment as a matter of law on an insurer’s claim for breach of a 1973 certificate and the insurer’s other contract claims and affirmative defenses in their New York federal court dispute over coverage for settlements of asbestos claims (Utica Mutual Insurance Co. v. Century Indemnity Co., No. 13-995, N.D. N.Y.).
BROOKLYN, N.Y. — Pending the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in a case concerning the issue of standing under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, a captive reinsurer and other defendants on Sept. 25 asked a New York federal court to stay a lawsuit accusing them of a scheme to cheat home health aides out of lost wages and benefits (Ynes M. Gonzalez de Fuente, et al. v. Preferred Home Care of New York LLC, et al., No. 18-6749, E.D. N.Y.).
AUSTIN, Texas — A reinsurer, as a debtor, argues to a Texas federal bankruptcy court in a Sept. 23 reply brief that a medical malpractice insurer has failed to cooperate with resolution of its guaranty claim and, thus, the court should grant the reinsurer’s motion for an estimation of that claim (In re: Capson Corp., et al., Nos. 19-10890, 19-10893 & 19-10894, W.D. Texas Bkcy.).
MIAMI — In a lawsuit filed Sept. 20 in Florida federal court, the manufacturer of prepackaged vegetable trays seeks a ruling that an insurer owes coverage to the manufacturer as an additional insured for claims arising out the contamination of produce used in the vegetable trays (Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A. Inc. v. AMCO Insurance Co., et al., No. 19-23917, S.D. Fla.).
GREENVILLE, S.C. — Two defendants filed separate objections on Sept. 5 to a South Carolina federal magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny them summary judgment on various claims, including ones for violations of Sections 1962(d) and 1962(c) of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) Act, filed by a special deputy receiver in a lawsuit alleging a scheme to defraud a multiple-employer self-insured health plan with fraudulent letters of credit (LOC) (Michael J. FitzGibbons, et al. v. Alton Atkinson, et al., No. 17-2092, D. S.C.).
TACOMA, Wash. — A Washington federal bankruptcy judge properly used its power under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code to approve two settlements between Chapter 11 debtor Fraser’s Boiler Service Inc. and several asbestos liability insurers, the debtor argues in a Sept. 9 brief on appeal by nonsettling insurers in federal court (Fraser’s Boiler Service, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, et al, No. 19-35269, 9th Cir.).
SAN FRANCISCO — An insolvent surety “offers little authority” to show that a continuing agreement of indemnification (CAI) did not imply a duty to inform homebuilders of claims made against surety bonds, the homebuilders argue in a June 28 reply brief in the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, asking that entry of summary judgment to the surety be reversed (Western Insurance Co. in liquidation v. Frontier Homes LLC, et al., No. 19-55101, 9th Cir.).
ATLANTA — An 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel will consider whether an insurance policy covers cleaning costs required to remediate dust damage from nearby roadwork after briefing wrapped up earlier this year (Mama Jo’s Inc. d/b/a Berries v. Sparta Insurance Co., No. 18-12887, 11th Cir.).
MIAMI — An insured recently asked a Florida appeals court to reverse a lower court’s finding that she perpetrated a fraud on the court by providing materially false information in her affidavit in a water damage coverage dispute, arguing that the discrepancies between the affidavit and her live testimony “can be explained by her memory difficulties and by understanding that the date she discovered the loss is not the date of loss or the date of the weather event causing the loss” (Irma Perez v. Safepoint Insurance Company, No. 3D18-1588, Fla., App., 3rd Dist.).
CHARLOTTE, N.C. — An insurer of Chapter 11 debtors Kaiser Gypsum Co. Inc. and Hanson Permanente Cement Inc. says in an Aug. 28 adversary complaint in North Carolina federal bankruptcy court that it should be relieved of its duty to pay to defend asbestos personal injury claims because of the debtors’ breach of cooperation agreements (Truck Insurance Exchange v. Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc., et al., No. 19-03052, W.D. N.C. Bkcy.).
SAN FRANCISCO — The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals is scheduled to hear oral arguments on Oct. 22 in a flood insurance coverage case in which a hotel and its insurer dispute whether the flooded portion of the hotel constitutes a “basement,” which affects the amount that can be recovered (Surfsand Resort LLC v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co., et al., No. 18-35607, 9th Cir.).
ATLANTA — A vehicle service contracts administrator argues in an Aug. 27 appellant brief to the Georgia Court of Appeals that a lower court erred in confirming a $462,971 arbitration award in favor of a car dealership and a reinsurer, while the car dealership and reinsurer argue in a cross-appeal filed the same day that the lower court failed to award attorney fees (Adventure Motorsports Reinsurance Ltd., et al. v. Interstate National Dealer Services Inc., No. A20A0036, and Interstate National Dealer Services Inc. v. Adventure Motorsports Reinsurance Ltd., et al., No. A20A0037, Ga. App.).
CINCINNATI — The Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeal will consider, without hearing oral arguments, an insurer’s appeal of a district court’s refusal to enforce a judgment entered in favor of the insurer in an asbestos coverage dispute that has been pending for almost 14 years (Continental Casualty Co., et al. v. Indian Head Industries Inc., No. 18-2152, 6th Cir.).
BROOKLYN, N.Y. — Home health aides ask a New York federal court in a Sept. 13 reply to strike a captive reinsurer’s motion to dismiss their lawsuit accusing the reinsurer and affiliates of a scheme to cheat the aides out of lost wages and benefits because the reinsurer should be required to post a $25 million bond before any pleading is accepted (Ynes M. Gonzalez de Fuente, et al. v. Preferred Home Care of New York LLC, et al., No. 18-6749, E.D. N.Y.).
SAN FRANCISCO — Insureds argue in their Aug. 15 brief before a California appeals court that a lower court never reached a joint and several liability issue because the lower court properly found insufficient evidence to support a damages claim by a reinsurer and its related entities for amounts owed under a reinsurance participation agreement (RPA) (Warwick California Corp., et al. v. Applied Underwriters Inc., et al., No. A155523, Calif. App., 1st Dist., Div. 4).
BOSTON — An insurer in a Sept. 13 motion asks a Massachusetts federal court to compel reinsurers to produce documents and interrogatory responses relating to their allocation and billing of its own 2009 settlement with an insured in a separate matter (Certain London Market Company Reinsurers v. Lamorak Insurance Co., No. 18-10534, D. Mass., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38909).