NEW HAVEN, Conn. — Insurers ask a Connecticut federal court on June 30 to dismiss a homeowner’s claims that he paid kickbacks to a mortgage lender with “unmerited expense reimbursements or commissions, or reinsurance premiums” for the right to force-place insurance (FPI) on property (Robert R. Lewis v. M&T Bank Corp., et al., No. 20-552, D. Conn.).
PHILADELPHIA — An insurer on June 29 dismissed its Pennsylvania federal court lawsuit for breach of contract over a reinsurer’s alleged refusal to pay $903,530.60 in billings for asbestos claims (Century Indemnity Company v. RLI Insurance Company, No. 20-2095, E.D. Pa.).
NEW YORK — A federal judge in New York on June 29 granted and denied in part motions to preclude expert testimony in support of claims brought by the liquidators of two hedge funds for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty and fraud in the collapse of the funds in a case awaiting trial (In re Platinum-Beechwood Litigation, No. 18-6658, Martin Trott, et al. v. Platinum Management [NY] LLC, et al., No. 18-10936, S.D. N.Y., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113277).
BOSTON — Reinsurers ask a Massachusetts federal court in a June 26 memorandum to compel an insurer to provide documents that would explain how the insurer allocated in its reinsurance billings a $120 million settlement involving environmental claims against its insured (Certain London Market Company Reinsurers v. Lamorak Insurance Co., No. 18-10534, D. Mass.).
MONTGOMERY, Ala. — An insurer argues in a June 25 brief that an Alabama federal court should deny a reinsurer’s request to dismiss claims for bad faith refusal to pay and “decline to create an exception that preemptively absolves reinsurers from bad faith claims” (Alabama Municipal Insurance Corporation v. Munich Reinsurance America, Inc., No. 20-300, M.D. Ala.).
NEW YORK — Addressing six motions to dismiss, a New York federal judge granted and denied in part the motions on June 22 in an insurer’s suit alleging that defendants “engaged in a complex and massive fraud against it, resulting in losses exceeding $135 million” (Great Western Insurance Co. v. Mark Graham, et al., No. 18-6249, S.D. N.Y., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109330).
ATLANTA — The Georgia Court of Appeals on June 25 reversed confirmation of a $462,781 arbitration award in favor of a car dealership and reinsurer because an arbitrator “unlawfully departed” from a producer agreement’s terms on the administration of vehicle service contracts and reinsurance program (Adventure Motorsports Reinsurance Ltd., et al. v. Interstate National Dealer Services Inc., No. A20A0036, Interstate National Dealer Services Inc. v. Adventure Motorsports Reinsurance Ltd., et al., No. A20A0037, Ga. App., 2020 Ga. App. LEXIS 394).
NEW YORK — A Japanese insurer reached a settlement with a reinsurer concerning its lawsuit seeking an order of specific performance under reinsurance and retrocession agreements over the release of excess assets in an operating account, according to a June 22 order by a New York federal judge (TAKATA Reinsurance Inc. v. AIU Insurance Company Ltd., No. 19-04586, S.D. N.Y.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A District of Columbia federal magistrate judge recommended June 22 that trustees of the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) pension plan proceed with jurisdictional discovery against a Bermuda reinsurance and insurance company over alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act regarding the failure to make $934 million in withdrawal liability payments (Michael H. Holland, et al. v. Cardem Insurance Company Ltd., No. 19-02362, D. D.C.).
GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. — A reinsurer was denied a preliminary injunction by a Michigan federal judge on June 22 in its suit seeking damages from an insurer in excess of $3,707,961 related to alleged improper claim payments under two employee benefit plans (Alliance Health & Life Insurance Company v. Symetra Life Insurance Company, No. 20-431, W.D. Mich.).
BOSTON — A First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on June 17 denied an insurer’s liquidator’s motion to stay arbitration with reinsurers in a $150 million hurricane loss case despite the liquidator’s argument that the McCarran Ferguson Act reverse-preempts the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) (Integrand Assurance Co. v. Everest Reinsurance Co., et al., No. 20-1534, 1st Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In light of a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling, a U.S. Court of Federal Claims judge on June 12 further stayed a dispute between an insolvent insurer’s liquidators and the U.S. government over an alleged violation of South Carolina insurance law after an offset of $36 million under the reinsurance program of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) (Raymond G. Farmer, et al. v. The United States, No. 18-1484, Fed. Clms.).
BROOKLYN, N.Y. — Home health employers on June 15 wrote to a New York federal judge about a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision addressing standing in Employee Retirement Income Security Act fiduciary breach actions such as the one against them and a captive reinsurer over allegations that they cheated 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.).
NEW YORK — The U.S. government in a June 16 reply brief asks the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reinstate jury verdicts against two former hedge executives and to proceed to sentencing over allegations of securities fraud in a scheme to transfer the hedge fund’s assets to a reinsurance company and related entities to defraud bondholders in an oil and gas company (United States v. Uri Landesman, et al., No. 19-3207 c/w 19-3209, 2nd Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In its June 15 order list the U.S. Supreme Court announced that it will hear, for a second time, a dispute between two distributors of dental equipment that poses the question of whether an exemption in an arbitration agreement for certain claims negates what a petitioner describes as “an otherwise clear and unmistakable delegation of questions of arbitrability to an arbitrator” (Henry Schein Inc. v. Archer and White Sales Inc., No. 19-963, U.S. Sup.).
COLUMBIA, S.C. — U.S. Bank National Association on June 15 asked a South Carolina federal judge to deny an insurer’s request for a new trial to amend or alter a judgment that found that the bank is not liable to the insurer for claims and damages arising out of an alleged breach by the bank of its duties as trustee of a reinsurance trust for an insolvent insurance company (Accident Insurance Company Inc. v. U.S. Bank National Association, et al., No. 16-2621, D. S.C.).
GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. — An insurer on June 12 asked a Michigan federal court to send to arbitration a reinsurer’s lawsuit seeking damages in excess of $3,707,961 related to the insurer’s alleged improper payments of claims under two employee benefit plans (Alliance Health & Life Insurance Company v. Symetra Life Insurance Company, No. 20-431, W.D. Mich.).
DENVER — Colorado lawmakers introduced a bill on June 9 that would impose a premium fee on health insurers to support the state’s reinsurance program and extend access to more affordable health insurance for residents who are unable to get coverage under the Affordable Care Act.
BOSTON — An insurer’s liquidator argues to the First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that the McCarran Ferguson Act reverse-preempts the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) in a June 8 reply brief in support of staying arbitration with a group of reinsurers in their $150 million hurricane loss dispute (Integrand Assurance Co. v. Everest Reinsurance Co., et al., No. 20-1534, 1st Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — An insolvent insurer’s liquidator argues in a June 8 appellee brief to the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that Colorado’s insolvency law prohibits the U.S. government’s offset of payment under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) risk adjustment program against the liquidator’s demand for payment under the ACA’s reinsurance program (Michael Conway v. The United States, No. 20-1292, Fed. Cir.).