PITTSBURGH — Mortgagors and a reinsurer in a mortgage insurance reinsurance scheme case tell a Pennsylvania federal court in an Oct. 6 reply brief that homeowners fail to offer reasoning as to why the mortgagors and reinsurer are not entitled to judgment on a Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) claim under Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals law (Linda Menichino, et al. v. Citibank, N.A., et al., No. 12-00058, W.D. Pa.).
ATLANTA — In a dispute over alleged fraudulent transfers of reinsurance funds, a Georgia federal judge on Oct. 6 ordered an insurer to produce information for each claim for which it has the claim date within six months of the start or end of a reinsurance agreement (Canal Insurance Co., et al. v. Golden Isles Reinsurance Company Ltd,, et al., No. 15-03331, N.D. Ga.).
HARRISBURG, Pa. — Reinsurance facultative certificates covered defense expenses in excess of a liability cap, a Pennsylvania appeals panel ruled Oct. 17, affirming that insurers were entitled to interest on certain proofs of loss for asbestos claims issued before 2013 (Century Indemnity Co. v. OneBeacon Insurance Co., No. 1280 EDA 2016, Pa. Super., 2017 Pa. Super. LEXIS 806).
DENVER — A division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture improperly determined that a yield crop exclusion was not immediately available to farmers upon the passage of a farm bill for purposes of calculation in reinsurance coverage, a Colorado federal judge ruled Oct. 13 (Glenn Ausmus, et al. v. Sonny Perdue, et al., No. 16-01984, D. Colo., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169305).
COLUMBIA, S.C. — The U.S. government says in its Sept. 26 reply brief in a South Carolina federal court that liquidators for a failed South Carolina Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) co-operative insurer failed to establish jurisdiction in their lawsuit alleging improper withholding of reinsurance payments from and setting off of debts owed by the government (Raymond G. Farmer, et al. v. United States of America, et al., No. 17-00956, D. S.C.).
ATLANTA — A Georgia federal judge approved on Oct. 12 an amended forbearance agreement in a dispute between a Bermuda reinsurer and an insurer and administratively closed the case (TIG Insurance Co. v. Appalachian Reinsurance [Bermuda] Ltd., No. 17-02938, N.D. Ga.).
EL PASO, Texas — In a lawsuit alleging a scheme to take control over a dealership and to decline selling vehicle-protection products that are reinsured by the reinsurers, defendants argue in their Oct. 11 reply brief to a Texas federal court for dismissal in favor of a state probate court action (Richard C. Poe II, et al. v. Anthony E. Bock, et al., No. 17-00232, W.D. Texas).
ROCHESTER, N.Y. — An insurer is not entitled to recover any amounts exceeding the “reinsurance accepted” amount set forth in reinsurance certificates, a New York appeals panel ruled Oct. 6 (Utica Mutual Insurance Co. v. Alfa Mutual Insurance Co., et al., No. 17-00305, N.Y. Sup., App. Div., 4th Dept., 2017 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7064).
EL PASO, Texas — A shareholder of car dealerships and his reinsurance companies on Oct. 4 filed an opposition in Texas federal court to dismissal of their complaint alleging a scheme to take control over the dealership and to decline selling vehicle-protection products that are reinsured by the reinsurers (Richard C. Poe II, et al. v. Anthony E. Bock, et al., No. 17-00232, W.D. Texas).
SAN DIEGO — A California federal judge on Oct. 4 granted a reinsurer’s request for a $3.2 million default judgment in a dispute over alleged breach of reinsurance agreements as a result of a series of fraudulent transfers (Odyssey Reinsurance Co. v. Richard Keith Nagby, et al., No. 16-3038, S.D. Calif., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165582).
AUSTIN, Texas — A New Zealand reinsurer argues in a Sept. 12 reply brief that a Texas federal court should transfer venue or compel arbitration of a reinsurance agreement dispute with an insolvent insurer because a breach of contract claim is subject to an arbitration clause (Gramercy Insurance Co. v. Contractor’s Bonding Ltd., No. 17-723, W.D. Texas).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A credit insurer argues in a Sept. 29 motion that a financial services company failed to assert a claim against it in a breach of contract lawsuit filed in the District of Columbia federal court, in which the financial services company seeks to collect on a $26 million judgment arbitration award from the credit insurer and its reinsurers (Vantage Commodities Financial Services I, LLC v. Assured Risk Transfer PCC, LCC, et al., No. 17-01451, D. D.C.).
BALTIMORE — In an alleged life insurance fraud scheme that shifted debt to reinsurers, a Maryland federal magistrate judge on Sept. 28 ordered a life insurer to submit life insurance policies affected by a cost of insurance (COI) and within the 2004-2015 time range (Richard Dickman, et al. v. Banner Life Insurance Co., No. 16-192, D. Md., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161545
CINCINNATI — A farming cooperative argues in a Sept. 12 brief to the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that it did not lose status as an entity approved to make premium-rebate payments for 2005, 2006 or 2007 reinsurance years after its merger with a nongrandfathered cooperative (Sunrise Cooperative Inc. v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, et al., No. 17-3807, 6th Cir.).
PHILADELPHIA — In response to an insurer’s breach of contract counterclaims, a reinsurer on Sept. 27 filed an amended answer in a Pennsylvania federal court, asserting a statute of limitations defense and that it did not agree to reinsure an excess umbrella policy (R&Q Reinsurance Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co., No. 16-1473, E.D. Pa.).
COLUMBIA, S.C. — An insurer sufficiently alleged claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence/gross negligence and negligent misrepresentation against a bank for its role as trustee of a reinsurance trust with an insolvent insurer, a South Carolina federal judge ruled Sept. 28, refusing to dismiss the claims (Accident Insurance Company Inc. v. U.S. Bank National Association, et al., No. 16-2621, D. S.C., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159628).
COLUMBIA, S.C. — Citing a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling, a South Carolina federal judge on Sept. 25 dismissed a lawsuit accusing a bank of breaching its duties as trustee of a reinsurance trust account for lack of personal jurisdiction (Accident Insurance Company Inc. v. U.S. Bank National Association, et al., No. 16- 2621, D. S.C., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156301).
CINCINNATI — In an asbestos coverage dispute, an Ohio federal magistrate judge on Sept. 26 refused to reconsider a prior decision where she declined to conduct an in camera review of an insurer’s documents disclosed to third parties other than a reinsurer and a claims adjuster because they are not entitled to protection under the attorney-client privilege (The William Powell Co. v. National Indemnity Co., et al., No. 14-807, S.D. Ohio, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157733).
SAN DIEGO — A California federal magistrate judge on Sept. 22 denied a reinsurer’s request for expedited discovery to locate unlawfully distributed funds (Odyssey Reinsurance Co. v. Richard Keith Nagby, et al., No. 16-3038, S.D. Calif., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155546).
PHILADELPHIA — A Pennsylvania federal judge ruled Sept. 22 that it is not implausible that a provision allowing a life insurer to consider that future “expenses” for a cost of insurance (COI) calculus would not include reinsurance costs (EFG Bank AG, Cayman Branch, et al. v. Lincoln National Life Insurance Co., No. 17-02592, E.D. Pa., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154985).