DETROIT — An insurer filed a complaint on June 21 in a Michigan federal court alleging breach of a facultative reinsurance agreement for a reinsurer’s failure to indemnify it for certain loss and loss related expenses incurred in connection with asbestos claims brought against an insured (Amerisure Mutual Insurance Co. v. Transatlantic Reinsurance Co., No. 18-11966, E.D. Mich.).
BOSTON — In a reinsurance treaty dispute over environmental claims, a group of insurance syndicates and an insurer on June 15 filed a joint stipulation of dismissal without prejudice of all claims filed in the Massachusetts federal court (Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London v. Transport Insurance Co., No. 17-10618, D. Mass.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A District of Columbia federal judge on June 14 declined a financial services company’s request to file a supplemental memorandum in support of its oppositions to motions to dismiss its breach of contract lawsuit seeking to recover a $26 million arbitration award directly from reinsurers (Vantage Commodities Financial Services I, LLC v. Assured Risk Transfer PCC, LCC, et al., No. 17-01451, D. D.C.).
PHILADELPHIA — Homeowners filed a notice of appeal on June 18 of a Pennsylvania federal judge’s dismissal of claims for violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and unjust enrichment in a putative class action alleging a captive reinsurance scheme between banks and an affiliated reinsurer (Christopher Blake, et al. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., et al., No. 13-6433, E.D. Pa.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Because a company did not issue insurance or reinsurance contracts during the tax years at issue, a U.S. tax judge ruled June 18 that it did not receive more than 50 percent of its gross receipts from insurance premiums (Reserve Mechanical Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, No. 14545-16, U.S. Tax, 2018 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 87).
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — In two putative class actions over a reinsurance participation agreement (RPA), a California federal magistrate judge on June 14 ordered an insurance agency to produce nonprivileged, responsive information requested by a reinsurer and its affiliates (Shasta Linen Supply Inc. v. Applied Underwriters Inc., et al., Nos. 16-00158 & 16-01211, E.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100158).
SIOUX CITY, Iowa — In a dispute against an employer’s workers’ compensation insurer and a third-party claims administrator, an Iowa federal judge on June 13 declined to dismiss bad faith claims and instead certified a question to the Iowa Supreme Court (Samuel De Dios v. Indemnity Insurance Company of North America, et al., No. 18-4015, N.D. Iowa, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98833).
RICHMOND, Va. — There was no error in the dismissal of North Carolina state law claims against insurers because they are barred by an arbitrator’s finding that a farm did not timely commence arbitration required by insurance policies and preempted by the Federal Crop Insurance Act (FCIA), the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled June 13 (J.O.C. Farms LLC v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co., et al., No. 15-2368, 4th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 15853).
NEW YORK — A life insurer argues in its June 4 reply brief that a New York federal court should certify for interlocutory appeal a ruling forcing a $50 million Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act lawsuit against a reinsurance executive and others to be arbitrated (Bankers Conseco Life Insurance Co., et al. v. Moshe M. Feuer, et al., No. 16-7646, S.D. N.Y.).
NEW YORK — A life insurer and a private investment firm wrote a New York federal court on June 8 requesting a pre-motion conference on a motion to dismiss a class action alleging breach of policies by the unlawful increase of the premium costs to recoup costs associated with the acquisition (Derek Fan, et al. v. Phoenix Life Insurance Co., et al., No. 18-01288, S.D. N.Y.).
EL PASO, Texas — In a case alleging a scheme to take control over an auto dealership and to decline selling vehicle-protection products that are reinsured, a Texas federal magistrate judge on June 11 recommended that a federal civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act claim be dismissed (Richard C. Poe II, et al. v. Anthony E. Bock, et al., No. 17-00232, W.D. Texas).
MINNEAPOLIS — Parties have written a letter to a Minnesota federal magistrate judge on June 8 advising that they have settled a breach of contract lawsuit arising from an insurer’s alleged failure to reimburse unpaid defense costs in a settlement of an underlying workers’ compensation claim after reinsurance initially provided coverage (Berkley Risk Administrators Co. LLC, et al. v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, No. 17-04765, D. Minn.).
LEXINGTON, Ky. — Farmers defrauded the United States through the filing of false insurance claims reimbursed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and by making false statements and reports in connection with the federally reinsured crop insurance program, the government alleges in a June 6 indictment filed in a Kentucky federal court (United States v. Bradley Price, et al., No. 18-cr-60, E.D. Ky.).
COLUMBIA, S.C. — In a South Carolina federal court dispute involving a bank sued for its role as trustee of a reinsurance trust for an insolvent insurer, an insurer in a June 7 filing opposes the bank’s motion to compel the identity and production of documents related to damages (Accident Insurance Company Inc. v. U.S. Bank National Association, et al., No. 16-2621, D. S.C.).
LEXINGTON, Ky. — In a criminal proceeding against a farmer for making false statements for federally reinsured crops, a Kentucky federal judge on June 6 granted a motion to continue trial until Jan. 8 (United States v. Ronnie Jolly, No. 18-cr-32, E.D. Ky.).
LOS ANGELES — A landscape company says in its June 10 reply brief to a California federal court that service of suit was defective regarding a reinsurer’s petition seeking confirmation of a $82,130.44 arbitration award (Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company Inc. v. O’Connell Landscape Maintenance Inc., No. 18-00683, C.D. Calif.).
ST. LOUIS — In a dispute over the mishandling of funds belonging to insolvent funeral insurers, a Missouri federal judge on June 8 denied a special deputy receiver’s motion for protective order as to documents and communications relating to any assumption reinsurance agreements (Jo Ann Howard & Associates P.C., et al. v. J. Douglas Cassity, et al., No. 09-01252, E.D. Mo., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96627).
BRIDGEPORT, Conn. — Opposing a motion to dismiss, an insurer argues in a May 25 brief that a Connecticut federal court has personal jurisdiction over its breach of contract case against reinsurers regarding an asbestos claims settlement because the risk is located in the state (Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., et al., No. 18-00088, D. Conn.).
MIAMI — Finding no genuine issue of material fact, a Florida federal judge on June 5 ordered a woman to pay $8,903.36 plus interest to the U.S. government for reinsured student loans (United States v. Tracey Ann Limato, No. 17-14439, S.D. Fla., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96055).
NEW YORK — In a reinsurance dispute between an insolvent insurer and underwriters, the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals held June 7 that a party seeking to vacate an award “must sustain a higher burden to prove evident partiality on the part of an arbitrator who is appointed by a party and who is expected to espouse the view or perspective of the appointing party” (Certain Underwriting Members of Lloyds of London, et al. v. Florida, et al., No. 17-1137, 2nd Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 15377).