COLUMBIA, S.C. — In a case over a bank’s alleged breach of duties as trustee of a reinsurance trust for an insolvent insurer, a South Carolina federal judge on June 21 excluded evidence related to government investigations but refused to bar evidence concerning bank secrecy act/anti-money laundering compliance (BSA/AML) training (Accident Insurance Company Inc. v. U.S. Bank National Association, et al., No. 16-2621, D. S.C., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103923).
NEW YORK — An insurer and a reinsurer notified a New York federal judge on June 3 that they agreed to voluntarily dismiss their breach of contract lawsuit regarding claims under facultative reinsurance contracts for losses of $2.5 million (Continental Insurance Company of New Jersey, et al. v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, No. 18-4715, S.D. N.Y.).
UTICA, N.Y. — In light of a recent decision in a similar case, a reinsurer on June 18 moved in a New York federal court to renew motions for partial summary judgment on allocation and collateral estoppel issues in the reinsurer’s dispute with an insurer over settlements of asbestos claims (Utica Mutual Insurance Co. v. Century Indemnity Co., No. 13-995, N.D. N.Y.).
PHILADELPHIA — Finding a lawsuit brought by homeowners to be untimely, the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on June 19 upheld the dismissal of homeowners’ claims for violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and unjust enrichment in their 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. 18-2368, 3rd Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 18370).
By Robert M. Hall
NEW YORK — In seven separate motions, third-party defendants on June 14 asked a New York federal court to dismiss a runoff insurer’s third-party complaint alleging aiding-and-abetting fraud and breach of fiduciary duty in a “massive fraudulent scheme” for failing to make particularized allegations against them (Melanie L. Cyganowski v. Beechwood Re Ltd., et al., No. 18-12018, S.D. N.Y.).
SAN FRANCISCO — In a dispute over fees allegedly owed under two reinsurance participation agreements (RPA), a California federal judge on June 17 confirmed in part a final arbitration award with the exception of the arbitrator’s order increasing the interest rate applied to sums owed under the first RPA (Mike Rose’s Auto Body Inc. v. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company Inc., No. 16-01864, N.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100943).
KANSAS CITY, Kan. — A final agency determination (FAD) made by government agencies that reinsure crop insurance policies was not arbitrary or capricious, a Kansas federal judge ruled June 14, denying a request to set aside that action (Kevin Struss, et al. v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, et al., No. 18-2184, D. Kan., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99957).
BOSTON — An insured alleges in a June 14 complaint filed in a Massachusetts federal court that two insurers who are parties to an administration agreement and a reinsurance agreement engaged in a financial conflict of interest with regard to the denial of his long-term disability benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (Gary D. Powers v. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co., et al., No. 19-11335, D. Mass.).
CHICAGO — An insolvent insurer’s liquidator argues in a June 7 reply filed in Illinois federal court that a panel exceeded its authority when it issued attorney fees in its $437,000 arbitration award to a reinsurer (Catalina Holdings [Bermuda] Ltd. v. Jennifer Hammer, No. 18-5642, N.D. Ill.).
SAN DIEGO — A reinsurer in a June 14 motion requests that a California federal judge in accordance with a turnover order disburse $958,017.66 of registry funds to it in a fraudulent transfer dispute concerning a $3.2 million judgment (Odyssey Reinsurance Co. v. Richard Keith Nagby, et al., No. 16-3038, S.D. Calif.).
BOSTON — Stating that a confirmation proceeding was not a “prior pending action,” an insurer in a June 13 brief opposes a request to dismiss a Massachusetts federal court case seeking to compel arbitration of a dispute over outstanding reinsurance billings for sexual molestation (Century Indemnity Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, No. 19-11056, D. Mass.).
NEW YORK — In a first amended complaint filed June 10 in a New York federal court, a hedge fund accuses an insurer of tortiously interfering with the fund’s contractual rights regarding notes purchased from a reinsurer by initiating reorganization proceedings under Irish law (ESM Fund I, L.P. v. Ambac Assurance UK Ltd., No. 19-5066, S.D. N.Y.).
NEW YORK — A New York federal judge on June 10 stayed a lawsuit by the Securities and Exchange Commission that alleges that two individuals “perpetrated multiple schemes to defraud their advisory clients, which were insurance companies and reinsurance trusts” (Securities and Exchange Commission v. Alexander C. Burns, et al., No. 18-09477, S.D. N.Y.).
SEATTLE — Citing a reinsurer’s failure to find any reinsurance exemption to Washington’s anti-arbitration regulation, an association of state public entities argues against the reinsurer’s request for arbitration of their breach of contract dispute regarding settlement of a lawsuit over police officers’ alleged excessive force in a June 10 brief in a Washington federal court (Washington Cities Insurance Authority v. Ironshore Indemnity Inc., No. 19-00054, W.D. Wash.).
OMAHA, Neb. — A reinsurer and its affiliates moved to dismiss counterclaims on June 7 in their breach of contract dispute over a workers’ compensation program, telling a Nebraska federal court that the counterclaims “are a hodgepodge of conclusory allegations and unsupported assertions that fail to meet basic pleading standards” (Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company Inc. v. Ramesh Pitamber & Kusum Pitamber, et al., No. 17-61, D. Neb.).
WILMINGTON, Del. — Two limited liability companies and liquidators for one of the companies filed a 101-page complaint in a Delaware state court on June 7, alleging breach of fiduciary duty with regard to transactions involving reinsurance agreements (Principal Growth Strategies LLC, et al. v. AGH Parent LLC, et al., No. 2019-0431, Del. Chan.).
RIVERSIDE, Calif. — Because its breach of contract dispute concerns whether coverage exists for $8.6 million in equipment breakdown claims and does not concern the interpretation of a reinsurance agreement, an insurer argues on June 5 that a California federal court should deny a reinsurer’s request to arbitrate or dismiss (Nationwide Agribusiness Insurance Co. v. The Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Co., No. 19-00531, C.D. Calif.).
DETROIT — A Michigan federal judge on June 4 issued a modified schedule order and joint discovery plan in an insurer’s breach of contract dispute against a reinsurer over reinsurance billings for underlying asbestos claims (Amerisure Mutual Insurance Co. v. Transatlantic Reinsurance Co., No. 18-11966, E.D. Mich.).
CAMDEN, N.J. — In separate reply briefs filed May 13, an institutional investor and a pension trust each argue to a New Jersey federal court that they have the largest financial interest to serve as lead plaintiff in securities class actions against a reinsurer and former officers over allegations of misrepresentation in underwriting and risk management techniques and a reinsurance portfolio’s risk (Michael Wigglesworth v. Maiden Holdings Ltd., et al., No. 19-05296, D. N.J.).