LOS ANGELES — A primary and first-excess layer legal malpractice insurer on Sept. 6 sued another excess insurer in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, seeking recovery of a portion of the $2.5 million it paid to settle an underlying lawsuit brought against their mutual law firm insured (Certain Underwriters At Lloyd’s, London, et al. v. Scottsdale Insurance Company, No. 19-07730, C.D. Calif.).
NEW YORK — Senior Health Insurance Company of Pennsylvania (SHIP) on Sept. 4 filed amended cross-claims and a third-party complaint, alleging a Ponzi-like scheme consisting of reinsurance companies and related investment management and servicing entities in which fraudulent misrepresentations were made to gain investment control and discretion over $320 million of the runoff insurer’s reserves (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.).
SAN FRANCISCO — A former National Football League player seeking total and permanent (T&P) disability benefits under the NFL’s retirement plan claims in an Aug. 26 suit filed in California federal court that the plan abused its discretion by refusing to pay him T&P benefits (Charles Dimry v. Bert Bell/Pete Rozelle NFL Player Retirement Plan, et al., No. 19-5360, N.D. Calif.)
BOSTON — A commercial general liability insurer on Aug. 19 argued to the First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that another insurer’s argument that it is estopped from enforcing its policy terms because its notification of a coverage decision was untimely is a “red herring” and that the appeals court should affirm a lower federal court’s ruling that it has no duty to defend an apartment management company insured against an underlying property damage lawsuit (Clarendon National Insurance Company v. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company, No. 19-1212, 1st Cir.).
DALLAS — While an insurer says it is entitled to summary judgment on an insured’s declaratory judgment claim concerning the ability to raise premium costs because it followed an assumption reinsurance agreement and a rehabilitation plan involving another insurer, the insured on Aug. 28 asked a Texas federal court to deny the motion because there is a genuine dispute of material fact (Don B. Chae v. American Fidelity Assurance Co., No. 19- 157, N.D. Texas).
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico — Reinsurers in two Aug. 21 filings argue that a federal judge in Puerto Rico should reject an insurer’s rehabilitator’s attempt to remand a case over $150 million in losses from two hurricanes to the insurer’s rehabilitation proceeding and, instead, send the matter to arbitration (Integrand Assurance Co. v. Everest Reinsurance Co., et al., No. 19-01111, D. Puerto Rico).
ST. CROIX, Virgin Islands — Two commercial property insurers on Aug. 16 filed a declaratory judgment lawsuit against their shopping mall insured in a federal court in the Virgin Islands, alleging that the insured has failed to establish that its more than $12.4 million in alleged Hurricane Maria damage was caused by covered perils that are not subject to the policies’ $3.25 million windstorm limit (Great Lakes Insurance S.E., et al. v. Sunshine Shopping Center, Inc., No. 19-00039, D. Virgin Islands).
HOUSTON — An insured recently asked a Texas appeals court to reverse a lower court’s summary judgment ruling in favor of general liability and excess insurer, arguing that the insurer’s evidence for its open book account, unjust enrichment and breach of contract claims is “inconsistent with the facts” and “contradictory” (Loadmaster Universal Rigs, Inc.v. Twin City Fire Insurance, No. 01-19-00229-CV, Texas App., 1st Dist.).
PHILADELPHIA — The Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals is scheduled to hear oral argument on Sept. 10 in a case brought by a widower who contends that he has been wrongly denied access to life insurance benefits on grounds that the insurer defined his wife’s death as a suicide (Gianfranco Arena v. RiverSource Life Insurance Company, No. 19-1043, 3rd Cir.).
PASADENA, Calif. — An insured and his assignee, who were involved in a motor vehicle accident, recently asked the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse a lower federal court’s dismissal of their bad faith lawsuit against the insured’s personal automobile insurer, arguing that the insurer “unreasonably rejected” the assignee’s $100,000 policy limits settlement offer by failing to comply with the terms of the offer (Ethan Volungis, et al v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance, No. 18-16600, 9th Cir.).
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — After a Florida appeals court certified a question of “great public importance” to the Florida Supreme Court, an insurer recently told the Florida high court that it has standing to maintain a malpractice lawsuit against counsel who was hired to represent its insured where it has a duty to defend (Arch Insurance Company v. Kubicki Draper LLP, No. 19-673, Fla. Sup.).
NEW YORK — A reinsurer and its entities argue in a July 30 opposition that a New York federal court should deny a runoff insurer’s motion to dismiss their counterclaims for entitlement to advancement and indemnification under investment management agreements (IMAs) in a dispute over the misuse and mismanagement of $320 million (In re Platinum-Beechwood Litigation; Senior Health Insurance Company of Pennsylvania v. Beechwood Re Ltd., et al., No. 18-6658, S.D. N.Y.).
BROOKLYN, N.Y. — A captive insurer and affiliates argue in an Aug. 9 reply brief to a New York federal court that home health aides “have been unable to identify any injury in fact, that is both individualized and concrete, and traceable” in their case alleging that a captive insurance and reinsurance scheme cheated the 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.).
SAN FRANCISCO — A reinsurer argues in its Aug. 7 opening brief that the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals should reverse a lower court’s order denying the reinsurer’s motion to intervene and remand to allow the reinsurer to file its complaint-in-intervention and proceed with its claims in a creditor’s dispute over a $3.2 million judgment (Odyssey Reinsurance Co. v. Richard Keith Nagby, et al. v. Knight Insurance Company Ltd., Nos. 19-55346 & 19-55347, 9th Cir.).
NEW YORK — A foreign representative in a reinsurer’s bankruptcy proceeding in an Aug. 6 motion asks a New York bankruptcy judge for additional Chapter 15 relief granting international comity and directing all creditor claims to be adjudicated in a Cayman proceeding because the Cayman court has jurisdiction to determine how and when the claims can be adjudicated for the benefit of the estate and all creditors (In re Beechwood Re, No. 19-11560, Chapter 15, S.D. N.Y. Bkcy.).
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — The California insurance commissioner on Aug. 6 asked a California federal court to quash a deposition subpoena in a breach of contract lawsuit filed by a reinsurer and its affiliates in a Nebraska federal court over a workers’ compensation program involving a reinsurance participation agreement (RPA) (Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company Inc. v. Ramesh Pitamber & Kusum Pitamber, et al., No. 19-mc-00129, E.D. Calif.).
NEW YORK — The Rockefeller University on Aug. 4 sued its primary and excess commercial general liability insurers in the New York County Supreme Court for breach of contract, bad faith and deceptive business practices and sought a declaration as to coverage for several hundred underlying claims alleging that its former employee sexually abused children for a span of 40 years (The Rockefeller University v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, et al., No. 654425/2019, N.Y. Sup., New York Co.).
BOSTON — A trustee for a bankrupt investment advisory company recently asked the First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse a lower federal court’s dismissal of his complaint seeking excess insurance coverage for $7.7 million in attorney fees arising from a formal order of investigation brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission (Craig R. Jalbert v. Zurich Services Corporation, et al, No. 18-2244, 1st Cir.).
SAN FRANCISCO — A private label manufacturer for Wal-Mart Inc. recently asked the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse a lower federal court’s ruling in favor of a commercial general liability insurer in its lawsuit seeking coverage for an underlying trademark infringement action brought against Wal-Mart, arguing that disputed issues of material fact preclude a summary judgment ruling (Hybrid Promotions LLC v. Federal Insurance Co., No. 18-56658, 9th Cir.).
PHILADELPHIA — A man who obtained a default judgment and $1.5 million damages in a defamation lawsuit against Journal Register East Inc. (JRE) recently asked the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to find that he has standing to sue the publisher’s insurer to recover the damages, arguing that a lower federal court erred in finding that he was not the insured’s assignee (Thomas A. Riley Jr. v. Mutual Insurance Company Ltd., No. 19-1321, 3rd Cir.).