BOSTON — In a dispute over environmental claims, an insurer argues in a June 21 brief filed in a Massachusetts federal court that it should not be forced to accept an umpire proposed by a group of insurance syndicates in arbitration because of “shenanigans” in the appointment process (Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London v. Transport Insurance Co., No. 17-10618, D. Mass.).
NEW HAVEN, Conn. — A reinsurer and insurer have resolved their $6.2 million reinsurance dispute involving a settlement of underlying asbestos claims, according to a June 20 status report filed in a Connecticut federal court (Travelers Casualty and Surety Co., f/k/a The Aetna Casualty and Surety Co. v. Century Indemnity Co. as successor to Insurance Company of North America, No. 16-cv-170, D. Conn.).
UTICA, N.Y. — After an insurer opposed a previous request to move a trial date in a reinsurance late-notice dispute, a reinsurer on June 19 asked a New York federal court to push back the date, this time to after Nov. 10, explaining that all witnesses will be available after that date (Utica Mutual Insurance Co. v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co., No. 09-cv-00853, N.D. N.Y.).
SCRANTON, Pa. — An insured’s presence destroys complete diversity jurisdiction in a negligence lawsuit also involving its subrogated insurer and reinsurer, a Pennsylvania federal judge ruled June 20, dismissing the lawsuit because it cannot proceed without the insured (RAD Manufacturing LLC f/k/a RAD Wood Work Co., et al. v. Advanced Fabrication Services Inc. t/d/b/a AFS Energy Systems, No. 16-2138, M.D. Pa., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94575).
NEW YORK — A reinsurer’s loan was not a fraudulent conveyance because a loan advance, regardless of the size of the collateral pledged, is “fair consideration” for the pledge, the First Department New York Supreme Court Appellate Division ruled June 20 (Stillwater Liquidating LLC v. Partner Reinsurance Company Ltd., et al., No. 4339 652451/15, N.Y. Sup., App. Div., 1st Dept., 2017 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4965).
NEW YORK — A Brazilian reinsurer on June 14 argued that a New York federal court should deny an insurer’s request for $5 million under an arbitration award in order to pay a settlement it reached with a steelmaker because the settlement does not require reinsurance coverage (National Indemnity Co. v. IRB Brasil Resseguros S.A., No. 15-3975, S.D. N.Y.).
NEW YORK — Three reinsurance executives on June 15 requested that a New York federal court send a $50 million Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act case against them to arbitration, arguing that the arbitration clause in the reinsurance agreement applies to them as well as their company (Bankers Conseco Life Insurance Co. and Washington National Life Insurance Co. v. Moshe M. Feuer, et al., No. 16-7646, S.D. N.Y.).
SAN FRANCISCO — Denying a petition for rehearing, a California appeals panel on June 14 upheld its earlier ruling that an insurance industry placement facility and joint reinsurance association is obligated by California Insurance Code Section 2051 to pay the costs to repair an insured’s home, less depreciation, even if the amount exceeds the fair market value of her home (California Fair Plan Association v. Marlene Garnes, No. A143190, Calif. App., 1st Dist., Div. 2, 2017 Cal. App. LEXIS 552).
MONTGOMERY, Ala. — A reinsurer argues in a June 8 brief that an Alabama federal court should not stay a nonprofit public insurer’s $1.3 million lawsuit pending arbitration because none of the claims is governed by a reinsurance agreement’s arbitration clause (Alabama Municipal Insurance Corp. v. Munich Reinsurance America Inc., No. 16-cv-00948, M.D. Ala.).
UTICA, N.Y. — Following failed settlement talks, a reinsurer in a June 12 letter requests that a New York federal court move the trial date in a reinsurance dispute from September to October to accommodate the schedule of its two key witnesses (Utica Mutual Insurance Co. v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co., No. 09-cv-00853, N.D. N.Y.).
ATLANTA — In a case over fraudulent transfers of reinsurance funds, a Georgia federal judge granted in part insurers’ motion to compel on June 12, ordering a reinsurer to provide missing tax documents to the insurers (Canal Insurance Co. and Canal Indemnity Co. v. Golden Isles Reinsurance Company Ltd,, et al., No. 15-cv-03331, N.D. Ga.).
NEW YORK — A reinsurer on June 2 filed a letter with a New York federal court opposing a request by the liquidator of The Home Insurance Co. to amend a complaint to assert additional claims for $362,787.84 in a dispute over reinsurance proceeds allegedly owed to the insurer’s estate (Roger A. Sevigny, the Commissioner of Insurance of the State of New Hampshire, as Liquidator of The Home Insurance Company v. Trygvesta Forsikring A/S, as successor in interest to Skandinavia Insurance Company Ltd., Trygvesta Forsikring A/S v. Cerberus Holding Company, LLC., No. 16-cv-04874, S.D. N.Y.).
NEW YORK — A New York federal bankruptcy judge held June 12 that a foreign specialty reinsurance company must post a bond in the amount of $15 million before a pending motion to compel arbitration of the dispute in Bermuda would be considered (In re: MF Global Holdings Ltd., et al. MF Global Holdings Ltd. as plan administrator, and MF Global Assigned Assets LLC v. Allied World Assurance Company Ltd., et al., Chapter 11 No. 11-15059, Adv. Proc. No. 16-01251, S.D. N.Y. Bkcy., 2017 Bankr. LEXIS 1585).
NEW YORK — In a dispute regarding reinsurance of workers’ compensation risks, a New York federal judge on June 8 ordered the parties to arbitration, noting that it “is entirely speculative” whether an arbitrator will rule on the role of a group of companies as real parties in interest (In the matter of the arbitration between National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA v. Federal Insurance Co., No. 16-CV-8821, S.D. N.Y., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88470).
LINCOLN, Neb. — A reinsured writes in a June 7 letter to a Nebraska federal court that its discovery responses regarding a promissory note and a reinsurance participation agreement were not deficient (Applied Underwriters Inc. v. Top’s Personnel Inc., No. 15CV90, D. Neb.).
ST. LOUIS — The Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on May 25 docketed an appeal regarding a ruling that the Federal Crop Insurance Corp. (FCIC), as reinsurer, has the duty and authority to issue a binding interpretation of special provisions and that it correctly confirmed denial of coverage to four farming entities for their damaged rice crops (Bottoms Farm Partnership, et al. v. Risk Management Agency, et al., No. 17-2164, 8th Cir.).
TOLEDO, Ohio — After a merger with a non-grandfathered cooperative, a farming cooperative lost its status as an entity approved to make premium-rebate payments for 2005, 2006 or 2007 reinsurance years, an Ohio federal judge ruled June 6 (Sunrise Cooperative Inc. v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, et al., No. 16CV1297, N.D. Ohio, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86696).
PITTSBURGH — In a mortgage insurance reinsurance scheme case, a Pennsylvania federal judge on June 6 denied leave to a putative class of mortgagors to file a third amended complaint based on their new theory under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) because it is time-barred and reliance on any equitable tolling doctrine has been disavowed (Linda Menichino, et al. v. Citibank, N.A., et al., No. 12-00058, W.D. Pa., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86380).
BOSTON — In a dispute over environmental claims, a collection of insurance syndicates on May 31 asked a Massachusetts federal court to compel a reinsurer to arbitrate their disagreement and to enforce the parties’ agreed-to procedure for the selection of an umpire (Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London v. Transport Insurance Co., No. 17-10618, D. Mass.).
PHILADELPHIA — In a breach of contract dispute, a reinsurer in a June 1 motion asks a Pennsylvania federal court to compel an insurer to produce all documents it redacted or withheld concerning “reserves,” “reinsurance,” “other reinsurance” and “proprietary” information (R&Q Reinsurance Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co., No. 16-cv-01473, E.D. Pa.).