NEW YORK — A life insurer and a private investment firm, which acquired the insurer, unlawfully increased the cost of premiums to recoup costs associated with the acquisition, among other reasons, plaintiffs allege in a Feb. 13 class action filed in a New York federal court (Derek Fan, et al. v. Phoenix Life Insurance Co., et al., No. 18-01288, S.D. N.Y.).
HARTFORD, Conn. — A Connecticut federal judge on Feb. 7 granted a joint motion by a reinsurer and insurer to withdraw a motion to dismiss and a motion to enjoin and instead to litigate a $1.25 million breach of contract dispute over settlement of underlying asbestos claims (Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. v. Allstate Insurance Co., No. 17-02144, D. Conn.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. government’s termination of insurers and reinsurers’ lawsuits pursuant to a claims settlement agreement between it and Libya and its subsequent legislation and executive order did not constitute a compensable taking under the Fifth Amendment, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed Feb. 12 (Aviation & General Insurance Company Ltd., et al. v. United States, Nos. 16-2389 & 16-2402, Fed. Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 3275).
NEW YORK — In a coverage dispute over asbestos litigation costs, a reinsurer and insurer submitted letters on Feb. 9 to the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals concerning how a New York high court ruling applies to a reinsurance contract’s per-occurrence liability cap (Global Reinsurance Corporation of America v. Century Indemnity Co., No. 15-2164, 2nd Cir.).
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — In two putative class actions over a reinsurance participation agreement (RPA), a California federal judge on Feb. 6 issued extensions on deadlines for expert disclosures, completion of discovery and discovery motions (Shasta Linen Supply Inc. v. Applied Underwriters Inc., et al., Nos. 16-00158 & 16-01211, E.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6079).
LINCOLN, Neb. — A reinsurer moved for summary judgment on Feb. 9 in Nebraska federal court, arguing that a promissory note executed pursuant to a reinsurance participation agreement (RPA) is void and unenforceable as a matter of public policy (Applied Underwriters Inc. v. Top’s Personnel Inc., No. 15-90, D. Neb.).
NEW YORK — In a dispute over an alleged profit arrangement between insurers and reinsurers, an estate’s executor established sufficient allegations to move forward with his tortious interference claim against a claims handler for its denial of payment of an underlying $7.1 million asbestos judgment, a New York justice ruled Jan. 24 (Ruby Konstantin v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, et al., No. 652897/2013, N.Y. Sup., New York Co.).
CHICAGO — In a lawsuit alleging a kickback scheme in lender-placed insurance, an Illinois federal judge on Feb. 8 dismissed most of the claims except for breach of contract and bad faith claims pertaining to alleged overcharging of nonexistent inspections (Mariusz Dolegiewicz v. U.S. Bank Trust, N.A., et al., No. 17-4737, N.D. Ill., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21089).
PITTSBURGH — An insured is not in contractual privity with a reinsurer under an insurance policy or a reinsurance agreement, a Pennsylvania federal judge held Feb. 8, dismissing breach of contract, bad faith and civil conspiracy claims (Three Rivers Hydroponics LLC v. Florists’ Mutual Insurance Co., et al., No. 15-00809, W.D. Pa., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20699).
LINCOLN, Neb. — In a dispute over whether a reinsurer owes $152,616.35 under a promissory note executed pursuant to a reinsurance participation agreement (RPA), the reinsurer filed a counterclaim on Feb. 2 in the Nebraska federal court, alleging that an insurer fraudulently charged employer-insureds inflated premiums and costs for workers’ compensation insurance (Applied Underwriters Inc. v. Top’s Personnel Inc., No. 15-90, D. Neb.).
COLUMBIA, S.C. — An insurer and a bank filed a joint status report on Feb. 5 informing a South Carolina federal judge that they have reached a tentative settlement over accusations that the bank mishandled reinsurance funds (Companion Property and Casualty Insurance Co. v. U.S. Bank National Association v. Redwood Reinsurance Spc. Ltd., et al., No. 15-01300, D. S.C.).
WILMINGTON, Del. — Former employees of a bankrupt insurance and reinsurance services company filed a putative class action complaint on Feb. 1 in the Delaware bankruptcy court, alleging that they were laid off without proper notice under the Workers’ Adjustment and Retraining Notice Act (WARN Act) (In re: Patriot National Inc., et al., Chapter 11, No. 18-10189, Michelle L. Cole, et al. v. Patriot National Inc., et al., Adv. Pro. No. 18-5, D. Del. Bkcy.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — On petition by a large mortgage lender and its captive reinsurer, a District of Columbia Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals majority on Jan. 31 upheld a federal statute’s provision preventing the U.S. president from firing an agency’s director without cause (PHH Corp., et al. v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, No. 15-1177, D.C. Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 2336).
PHILADELPHIA — In a consolidated class action against a life insurer for breaches of its policies through consideration of lower investment income and higher reinsurance costs, a Pennsylvania federal judge on Feb. 1 allowed the class to amend its complaint to add a tortious breach of good faith and fair dealing claim on behalf of a California subclass (In re: Lincoln National Co. Litigation, No. 16-06605, E.D. Pa., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16355).
ATLANTA — Parties to a dispute over alleged fraudulent transfers of reinsurance funds told a Georgia federal court on Jan. 18 that they have reached a settlement agreement (Canal Insurance Co., et al. v. Golden Isles Reinsurance Company Ltd., et al., No. 15-03331, N.D. Ga.).
JACKSONVILLE, Fla. — A Florida federal judge on Jan. 30 granted a default judgment in favor of the U.S. government for $10,532.47, plus continuing interest, for its reinsurance coverage of a student loan after the defendant failed to appear (United States of America v. Stephon B. Meadows, No. 17-1087, M.D. Fla., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14639).
UTICA, N.Y. — A reinsurer argues in its Jan. 19 reply brief for a new trial following a jury’s $64 million verdict that an insurer does not show that seven reinsurance agreements cover payments made to an insured in an asbestos claims settlement (Utica Mutual Insurance Co. v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co., No. 09-00853, N.D. N.Y.).
HARTFORD, Conn. — A reinsurer in a Jan. 16 motion seeks dismissal of a breach of contract complaint filed in Connecticut federal court based upon its refusal to pay $1.25 million under a series of reinsurance agreements to an insurer for a settlement of underlying asbestos claims (Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. v. Allstate Insurance Co., No. 17-02144, D. Conn.).
WILMINGTON, Del. — A reinsurance firm filed for Chapter 11 protection on Jan. 28 in the Delaware bankruptcy court with a plan to sell its equity free and clear of more than $30 million in interest liabilities (In re Scottish Holdings Inc., et al., No. 18-10160, D. Del. Bkcy.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on Jan. 22 denied certiorari in a dispute where a reinsurer asked whether “an argument that applies equally” to an arbitration clause under a reinsurance participation agreement (RPA) “as a whole is sufficient to specifically challenge a delegation provision” under Rent-A-Ctr., W., Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63, 70 (2010) (Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company Inc. v. Minnieland Private Day School Inc., No. 17-717, U.S. Sup., 2017 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 4426).