SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico — An insurer’s rehabilitator on July 8 asked a Puerto Rico federal judge to lift a stay of a dispute between the insurer and various of its reinsurers regarding losses from two hurricanes and then remand the case to the insurer’s rehabilitation proceeding (Integrand Assurance Co. v. Everest Reinsurance Co., et al., No. 19-01111, D. Puerto Rico).
CHICAGO — A reinsurer asks an Illinois federal court in a July 8 motion to award it attorney fees and costs because an insolvent insurer’s liquidator’s motion to vacate a $437,000 arbitration award has “no chance of success” (Catalina Holdings [Bermuda] Ltd. v. Jennifer Hammer, No. 18-5642, N.D. Ill.).
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico — An insolvent insurer’s stock owner, its president and vice president sued the Puerto Rico insurance commissioner and others on July 11 in a federal court in Puerto Rico, alleging that defendants engaged in a civil conspiracy to deprive them of their constitutional rights (Victor J. Salgado and Associates Inc., et al. v. Javier Rivera-Rios, et al., No. 19-01663, D. P.R.).
UTICA, N.Y. — In response to a reinsurer’s request to renew a motion for reconsideration on allocation and collateral estoppel issues in light of a recent decision in a similar case, an insurer in a July 9 opposition calls that motion “frivolous and another reminder of the wasteful and vexatious way” the reinsurer has litigated the New York federal court case over coverage for settlements of asbestos claims (Utica Mutual Insurance Co. v. Century Indemnity Co., No. 13-995, N.D. N.Y.).
LOS ANGELES — An insurer alleges in a July 3 complaint filed in a California federal court that a consulting group and others are responsible for a retail mall project’s property damages arising out of soil settlement caused by their faulty workmanship (Ironshore Specialty Insurance Co. v. Kling Consulting Group Inc., No. 19-05787, C.D. Calif.).
BOSTON — A rental company recently asked the First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse a lower federal court’s finding that an insurance policy that lists it as an additional insured is excess to its own insurance policies in a coverage dispute arising from an underlying boom lift accident, arguing that the lower court erred in finding that either one of its policies was “other valid and collectible insurance” for the purposes of its decision on the priority of coverage (Scottsdale Insurance Co. v. United Rentals, Nos. 18-1593 and 18-1588, 1st Cir.).
OMAHA, Neb. — In a breach of contract case over a workers’ compensation program, insureds argue in a July 2 brief that a Nebraska federal court should not dismiss counterclaims asserted under California law against a reinsurer and its affiliates because a choice-of-law provision found in a reinsurance participation agreement (RPA) is void (Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company Inc. v. Ramesh Pitamber & Kusum Pitamber, et al., No. 17-61, D. Neb.).
PHILADELPHIA — A law firm insured recently asked the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse a lower federal court’s ruling that a professional liability insurance policy's outside business exclusion precludes coverage for underlying claims against a law firm insured and one of its attorneys (Westport Insurance Corporation v. Hippo Fleming & Pertile Law Offices, et al., No. 18-3551, 3rd Cir.).
PASADENA, Calif. — A federally authorized au pair program sponsor recently asked the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to find that California law requires a not-for-profit entity and directors, officers liability insurer to prove that it was prejudiced by the insured’s alleged untimely reporting of an underlying lawsuit brought under the Sherman Act (EurAuPair International, Inc. v. Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company, No.18-55933, 9th Cir.).
NEW YORK — Insurers argue in a June 12 memorandum to a New York federal court that there is support for their third-party allegations of fraudulent inducement and fraud and violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act in a receiver’s lawsuit, seeking redress for damages arising out of a fraudulent scheme involving Platinum Partners Credit Opportunities Master Fund LP (PPCO funds) (In re Platinum-Beechwood litigation, No. 18-06658; Washington National Insurance Co., et al. v. Platinum Management [NY] LLC, et al., No. 18-12018, S.D. N.Y.).
BOSTON — In a dispute over outstanding reinsurance billings, underwriters argue in a June 27 reply to a Massachusetts federal court that an insurer’s arbitration demand involves the same settlement payments made to the same group of claimants regarding the same sexual molestation allegations (Century Indemnity Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, No. 19-11056, D. Mass.).
BROOKLYN, N.Y. — In a June 26 motion to dismiss a New York federal court lawsuit alleging that employers’ captive insurance and reinsurance scheme cheated home health aides out of lost wages and benefits, a captive insurer and its affiliates argue that the aides lack standing to assert a claim for engagement in prohibited transactions as nonfiduciary parties-in-interest in violation of Section 406(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (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 JUAN, Puerto Rico — An insurer asks in a June 20 motion that a Puerto Rico federal judge issue a 90-day stay of its lawsuit against various reinsurers regarding losses from two hurricanes in light of the recent rehabilitation proceedings initiated against the insurer (Integrand Assurance Co. v. Everest Reinsurance Co., et al., No. 19-01111, D. Puerto Rico).
NEW YORK — A run-off insurer argues in a June 21 opposition filed in New York federal court that affiliates of a failed Ponzi scheme strain the language of investment management agreements (IMAs) to support their motion for reconsideration of a ruling on a counterclaim for advancement of expenses (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).
SAN FRANCISCO — A panel of the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals is set to hear oral argument on July 8 in an insurance coverage appeal brought by judgment creditors who argue that a lower court erred when it failed to hold an insurer to the strict standard it must meet to show that coverage is barred (Bradley Stephen Cohen, et al. v. Berkley National Insurance Company, No. 17-16960, 9th Cir.).
LAS VEGAS — MGM Resorts International and others on June 19 sued their commercial general liability insurer in a Nevada federal court for breach of contract and bad faith, contending that the insurer wrongfully breached its duty to defend them against more than 4,000 claims arising from the Oct. 1, 2017, mass shooting at the Route 91 Harvest Country Music Festival (MGM Resorts International, et al. v. Zurich American Insurance Company, No. 19-01051, D. Nev.).
CAMDEN, N.J. — A homeowners insurer argues in a June 21 motion to dismiss in a New Jersey federal court that an insured’s breach of contract and bad faith suit stemming from the insured’s water damage claim must be dismissed because no coverage is owed under the policy and the insured failed to prove that the insurer’s denial of coverage was unreasonable (Johann Smith et al., v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., No. 19-10319, D. N.J.).
ST. LOUIS — An insured recently asked the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse a lower federal court’s ruling in favor of an insurer in its lawsuit seeking coverage for $25 million in damages arising from a fire at an oil refinery, contending that the lower court failed to recognize that the underlying claims are dependent upon allegations that it was responsible for the failure of the pipe elbow that caused the fire and covered property damage (Murphy Oil Corporation v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, No. 19-1140, 8th Cir.).
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — Two Florida homeowners on Jan. 14 appealed a state trial court ruling that they lack standing to bring an insurance coverage claim because they assigned their insurance rights to a company that performed remediation work on their home (Mohammed Sidiq, et al. v. Tower Hill Select Insurance Company, No. 4D18-2177, Fla. App., 4th Dist.).
HELENA, Mont. — Two recent briefs filed in the Montana Supreme Court question whether a state statute provides an absolute limit on the types of costs and expenses insureds can recover in suits against insurers or whether an exception permits additional recovery (Kyra King v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., No. DA 18-0503, Mont. Sup.).