FRESNO, Calif. — A California man alleges in an April 17 complaint filed in a California trial court that a used-vehicle seller and its affiliates, including an illegal shell reinsurance company, are involved in three fraudulent schemes in the sale of used vehicles and violated California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 (Alejandra Ochoa-Gonzalez v. Paul Blanco’s Good Car Company Fresno Inc., et al., No. 18CECG01311, Calif. Super., Fresno Co.).
DETROIT — A Michigan federal judge on April 18 dismissed indemnity claims brought by a putative class of farmers against crop insurers and the federal agencies that reinsure the policies but allowed the farmers to file a second amended complaint (Gregory Ackerman, et al. v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, et al., No. 17-11779, E.D. Mich., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64828).
BALTIMORE — In a dispute over an alleged life insurance fraud scheme that shifted debt to reinsurers, the parties on April 17 sought an extension from a Maryland federal court of deadlines for supplementation of expert disclosures and current discovery (Richard Dickman, et al. v. Banner Life Insurance Co., No. 16-192, D. Md.).
SYRACUSE, N.Y. — In a dispute over whether a reinsurer is obligated to an insurer for more than $3.2 million in reinsurance proceeds for an underlying asbestos settlement, the insurer in an April 3 motion seeks reconsideration of a New York federal judge’s finding of ambiguity in the reinsurance certificate provisions related to expense (Utica Mutual Insurance Co. v. Munich Reinsurance America Inc., Nos. 12-00196 & 13-00743, N.D. N.Y.).
COLUMBIA, S.C. — A bank being sued for its role as trustee of a reinsurance trust for an insolvent insurer argues on April 16 that a South Carolina federal court should decline to allow the insolvent insurer to amend its complaint to add a civil conspiracy claim (Accident Insurance Company Inc. v. U.S. Bank National Association, et al., No. 16-2621, D. S.C.).
BALTIMORE — The board governing Maryland’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) exchange on April 16 voted to seek federal funding for a reinsurance program it hopes will save its struggling marketplace.
TRENTON, N.J. — In opposing dismissal of their breach of contract class action lawsuit, homeowners tell a New Jersey federal court in an April 9 brief that they have sufficiently alleged a scheme on lender-placed insurance (LPI) involving a mortgage company, insurer and insurance broker with their use of kickbacks, including reinsurance premiums (Edward Leo v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC of Delaware, et al., No. 17-05839, D. N.J.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A financial services company tells the District of Columbia federal court in an April 9 brief that discovery should not be stayed in its breach of contract lawsuit seeking to recover a $26 million arbitration award directly from reinsurers, pending resolution of motions to dismiss (Vantage Commodities Financial Services I, LLC v. Assured Risk Transfer PCC, LCC, et al., No. 17-01451, D. D.C.).
SYRACUSE, N.Y. — An insurer on April 13 wrote to a New York federal court proposing a new schedule in an asbestos coverage case with its reinsurer in response to a ruling ordering document production (Utica Mutual Insurance Co. v. R&Q Reinsurance Co., No. 15-270, N.D. N.Y.).
PHILADELPHIA — Homeowners in a putative class action alleging a captive reinsurance scheme between banks and an affiliated reinsurer argue in a motion filed April 11 that a Pennsylvania federal judge should reconsider his ruling dismissing their claims for violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and unjust enrichment (Christopher Blake, et al. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., et al., No. 13-6433, E.D. Pa.).
ROME, N.Y. — A New York justice on March 7 ruled that a cedent is not entitled to asbestos loss and expenses beyond the stated coverage amount set forth in reinsurance certificates issued by members of a reinsurance pool (Utica Mutual Insurance Co. v. Abeille General Insurance Co., et al., No. CA2013-002320, N.Y. Sup., Oneida Co.).
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. — A reinsurer alleges in a first amended complaint on April 12 that it is subrogated to the rights of homeowners’ claims against a mining company for mining subsidence damage to their properties (Illinois Mine Subsidence Insurance Fund v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., No. 17-3199, C.D. Ill., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62025).
JACKSONVILLE, Fla. — The U.S. government is entitled to a default judgment of $9,111.61 for payment under a reinsurance agreement of a defaulted student loan, a Florida federal judge ruled April 11 (United States v. Patricia A. McQueen, No. 17-1443, M.D. Fla.).
NEW YORK — In a dispute over reinsurance proceeds allegedly owed to an insolvent insurer, a liquidator wrote to the New York federal court on April 4, proposing an amended phase one civil case discovery plan and scheduling order (Roger A. Sevigny v. Trygvesta Forsikring A/S, Trygvesta Forsikring A/S v. Cerberus Holding Company LLC, No. 16-04874, S.D. N.Y.).
OMAHA, Neb. — A court should determine whether a dispute must be arbitrated because an insured is challenging a reinsurance participation agreement’s arbitration clause, which delegates questions of arbitrability to an arbitrator, the Nebraska Supreme Court held April 6, reversing and remanding for further proceedings (Citizens of Humanity LLC, et al. v. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company Inc., No. S-17-178, Neb. Sup., 2018 Neb. LEXIS 65).
BRIDGEPORT, Conn. — An insurer is barred from coverage for underlying asbestos claims under reinsurance contracts because it breached conditions in the contracts, including the access to records clause, a reinsurer argues in its March 23 response to a complaint filed in Connecticut federal court (Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. v. Lamorak Insurance Co., No. 18-00087, D. Conn.).
SYRACUSE, N.Y. — In an asbestos coverage dispute, a New York federal magistrate judge on March 28 granted in part a reinsurer’s motion for reconsideration of a discovery ruling and ordered an insurer to disclose nonprivileged documents on coverage issues relating to primary and umbrella policies (Utica Mutual Insurance Co. v. R&Q Reinsurance Co., No. 15-cv-270, N.D. N.Y.).
BOSTON — In a reinsurance treaty dispute over environmental claims, a group of insurance syndicates in a March 23 motion seek an order from a Massachusetts federal court enjoining an insurer from filing a duplicative arbitration demand (Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London v. Transport Insurance Co., No. 17-10618, D. Mass.).
COLUMBIA, S.C. — An insolvent insurer on April 2 filed a motion asking a South Carolina federal court for permission to file a first amended complaint to add a civil conspiracy against a bank for its role as trustee of a reinsurance trust for the insolvent insurer (Accident Insurance Company Inc. v. U.S. Bank National Association, et al., No. 16-2621, D. S.C.).
HONOLULU — In a lawsuit against banks and insurers alleging unfair or deceptive acts or practices by placing “unnecessary” insurance, with “unreasonable and inflated premiums” that included “improper compensation through illegal kickback or captive reinsurance arrangements,” a Hawaii federal judge on March 30 addressed motions to dismiss federal and state claims (Julia Wieck v. CIT Group Inc., et al., No. 16-00596, D. Hawaii, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55257).