NEW YORK — A reinsurer must cover an insurer’s costs to defend an insured in asbestos litigation beyond its total liability cap because a prior New York decision does not compel a conclusion that the cap includes both indemnity and defense costs, the insurer argues in an April 14 appellant brief regarding a certified question to the New York Court of Appeals (Global Reinsurance Corporation of America, successor in interest Constitution Reinsurance Corp. v. Century Indemnity Co., successor interest to CCI Insurance Co., successor interest to Insurance Company of North America, No. CTQ-2016, 0005, N.Y. App.).
NEW HAVEN, Conn. — An insurer told a federal court in Connecticut on April 18 that a motion for reconsideration of the confirmation of an arbitration award should not be granted because there was no manifest injustice in the confirmation decision (General Re Life Corporation v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, No. 15-cv-01860, D. Conn.).
NEW YORK — An insurer told a federal court in New York on April 19 that it is appealing the court’s decision that vacated a reinsurance arbitration award because of the actions of an arbitrator (Certain Underwriting Members at Lloyd’s, London v. Insurance Company of the Americas, No. 16-cv-00323, S.D. N.Y.).
CHICAGO — A mortgage insurance reinsurer told a federal court in Illinois on April 5 that it is not the party responsible for disclosing information to mortgagees as required by the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) (People of the State of Illinois, ex rel., Acting Director of Insurance, Anne Melissa Dowling v. HMC Reinsurance Company, a Vermont Corporation, No. 16-cv-08156, N.D. Ill.).
ATLANTA — A federal judge in Georgia on April 13 denied a motion to dismiss claims regarding alleged fraudulent transfers of reinsurance funds for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the court does hold jurisdiction over a group of people that do not live in Georgia (Canal Insurance Company, et al. v. Golden Isles Reinsurance Company, Ltd, et al., No. 15-cv-3331, N.D. Ga.).
NEW HAVEN, Conn. — A reinsurer told a federal court in Connecticut on April 10 that a declaration of one of its executives in support of a motion for summary judgment should not be stricken because it is not in contradiction of earlier testimony (Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, f/k/a The Aetna Casualty and Surety Company v. Century Indemnity Company as successor to Insurance Company of North America, No. 16-cv-00170, D. Conn.).
COLUMBIA, S.C. — Finding that not all documents are privileged under the South Carolina Holding Company Regulatory Act, a South Carolina federal judge on April 10 declined to quash a subpoena in which a bank accused of mishandling reinsurance funds seeks an insurer’s financial documents from state insurance regulators (Companion Property and Casualty Insurance Co. n/k/a Sussex Insurance Co. v. U.S. Bank National Association v. Redwood Reinsurance Spc. Ltd., et al., No. 15-01300, D. S.C., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54182).
LAS VEGAS — The receiver of an insolvent insurer reported to a Nevada court on Feb. 15 that the receivership estate does not have enough assets to fully pay claims against the estate and owes money to certain London-based reinsurers (State of Nevada, ex rel. Commissioner of Insurance, in His Official Capacity as Statutory Receiver for Delinquent Domestic Insurer v. Professional Aviation Insurance Reciprocal, a Nevada Domiciled Reciprocal Captive Insurance Company, No. A-700829-p, Nev. Cir., Clark Co.).
NEW HAVEN, Conn. — A reinsurer told a federal court in Connecticut on April 10 that its reinsured should not be allowed to introduced new evidence in its summary judgment reply brief in a dispute over whether the reinsurer is obligated to honor the reinsured’s settlement (Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, f/k/a The Aetna Casualty and Surety Company v. Century Indemnity Company as successor to Insurance Company of North America, No. 16-cv-00170, D. Conn.).
BOSTON — An insurer told a federal court in Massachusetts on April 10 that the records sought by its reinsurer are irrelevant to the instant case and that by seeking these documents, the reinsurer is ignoring the tenants of the follow-the-settlements doctrine (Lamorak Insurance Company v. Everest Reinsurance Co., No. 15-cv-13425, D. Mass.).
NEW HAVEN, Conn. — The clerk of a federal court in Connecticut on April 3 notified an insurer and an insolvent reinsurer that they must explain their inaction regarding a suit or the suit will be dismissed (Select Insurance Company v. Excalibur Reinsurance Corporation, f/k/a PMA Capital Insurance Company, No. 15-cv-00715, D. Conn.).
PHILADELPHIA — A reinsurer told a federal court in Pennsylvania on April 11 that its reinsured is incorrect in its assertions regarding a cession statement, which the reinsurer says is an essential element of the parties’ reinsurance agreement (R&Q Reinsurance Company v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company, No. 16-cv-01473, E.D. Pa.).
SYRACUSE, N.Y. — An insurer told a federal court in New York on April 7 that its payments to its insured were reasonable and that a reinsurer’s challenge to those payments is contrary to the follow-the-fortunes doctrine (Utica Mutual Insurance Company v. Century Indemnity Company, No. 13-cv-00995, N.D. N.Y.).
NEW HAVEN, Conn. — A reinsurer on April 7 asked a federal court in Connecticut to reconsider its opinion confirming an arbitration award, arguing that there is no basis in the record to show how to calculate a monetary judgment (General Re Life Corporation v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, No. 15-cv-01860, D. Conn.).
CHICAGO — A trial judge properly invoked collateral estoppel to deny a motion to compel arbitration filed by an assigned entity to an insolvent insurer’s reinsurance contract, an Illinois appeals panel ruled March 31 (Pine Top Receivables of Illinois LLC v. Transfercom Ltd., No. 1-16-1781, Ill. App., 6th Div., 2017 Ill. App. LEXIS 196).
NEW YORK — A federal judge in New York on April 4 ordered a pair of reinsurers to pay participants to a captive reinsurance program $4 million plus pre- and post-judgment interest (AmTrust North America, Inc., et al. v. Pacific Re, Inc., et al., No. 17-cv-00515, S.D. N.Y.).
NEW YORK — An insurer told the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on April 3 that the language of certain reinsurance agreements are the same as if the agreements had specific follow-the-fortunes provisions (Utica Mutual Insurance Company v. Clearwater Insurance Company, No. 16-cv-2824 and Utica Mutual Insurance Company v. Clearwater Insurance Company, No. 16-2535, 2nd Cir.).
NEW HAVEN, Conn. — A federal judge in Connecticut on March 31 granted a motion to confirm an arbitration award as clarified, noting that the original unclarified award was ambiguous (General Re Life Corporation v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, No. 15-cv-01860, D. Conn., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48860).
NEW YORK — A federal judge in New York on March 31 vacated a reinsurance arbitration award because of an arbitrator’s failure to disclose his relationships with one of the arbitrating parties (Certain Underwriting Members at Lloyd’s, London v. Insurance Company of the Americas, Nos. 16-cv-323, 16-cv-374, S.D. N.Y.).
CONCORD, N.H. — The liquidator of an insolvent insurer on March 23 reported to a New Hampshire court more than $1 million in recommended reinsurance allowances for verified losses (In the Matter of the Liquidation of The Home Insurance Company, No. 03-E-0106, N.H. Super., Merrimack Co.).