NEW YORK — A New York federal judge on July 11 dismissed a reinsurer’s counterclaims seeking a declaration that a reinsurance agreement has been terminated and seeking rescission of that agreement and a return to the status quo pre-contract (AmTrust North America Inc. v. Signify Insurance Ltd., et al., No 18-3779, S.D. N.Y., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115576).
NEW YORK — In a runoff insurer’s case over allegations of misuse of $320 million by affiliates of a failed Ponzi scheme, a New York federal judge on July 8 denied reconsideration of his ruling denying summary judgment to the affiliates on their counterclaim for advancement of expenses (In re: Platinum-Beechwood Litigation; Senior Health Insurance Company of Pennsylvania v. Beechwood Re Ltd., et al., No. 18-6658, David Levy v. Senior Health Insurance Company of Pennsylvania, No. 19-3211, and B Asset Manager L.P., et al. v. Senior Health Insurance Company of Pennsylvania, No. 19-4487, S.D. N.Y., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112742).
NEW YORK — New York and Indiana security statutes apply to a reinsurer despite pending liquidation proceedings, a New York federal judge held July 10; however, the judge denied a motion to enforce the statutes because an arbitration panel must decide first whether insurers are barred from bringing the motion (In re Platinum-Beechwood litigation, No. 18-06658; Melanie L. Cyganowski, et al. v. Beechwood Re Ltd., et al., Washington National Insurance Co., et al. v. Beechwood Re Ltd., et al., No. 18-12018, S.D. N.Y., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114645).
UTICA, N.Y. — In response to a reinsurer’s request to renew a motion for reconsideration on allocation and collateral estoppel issues in light of a recent decision in a similar case, an insurer in a July 9 opposition calls that motion “frivolous and another reminder of the wasteful and vexatious way” the reinsurer has litigated the New York federal court case over coverage for settlements of asbestos claims (Utica Mutual Insurance Co. v. Century Indemnity Co., No. 13-995, N.D. N.Y.).
PHOENIX — In a July 3 complaint filed in an Arizona federal court, plaintiffs allege that defendants “mass-produced a flawed insurance product that exacerbated their clients’ tax burdens” when the product should have “alleviated” those tax burdens while also providing insurance benefits (Benyamin Avrahami, et al. v. Celia Clark, et al., No. 19-04631, D. Ariz.).
BOSTON — A former employee of a Bermuda reinsurance investment company and an affiliated company notified a Massachusetts federal court on July 2 that she was voluntarily dismissing her lawsuit accusing her former employers of refusing to make incentive payments of $7.45 million allegedly owed to her upon her termination of employment without cause (Alissa Fredricks v. Markel CATCo Investment Management Ltd., et al., No. 19-10331, D. Mass.).
OMAHA, Neb. — In a breach of contract case over a workers’ compensation program, insureds argue in a July 2 brief that a Nebraska federal court should not dismiss counterclaims asserted under California law against a reinsurer and its affiliates because a choice-of-law provision found in a reinsurance participation agreement (RPA) is void (Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company Inc. v. Ramesh Pitamber & Kusum Pitamber, et al., No. 17-61, D. Neb.).
COLUMBIA, S.C. — An insurer’s claims over a bank’s alleged breach of duties as trustee of a reinsurance trust for an insolvent insurer are subject to the jurisdiction of the insurer’s liquidation proceeding, a South Carolina federal judge ruled July 3, granting the bank’s motion to exclude testimony and evidence related to punitive damages (Accident Insurance Company Inc. v. U.S. Bank National Association, et al., No. 16-2621, D. S.C., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111371).
SAN DIEGO — In a fraudulent transfer case over a $3.2 million judgment, a California federal judge on July 2 granted summary judgment to a reinsurer on its Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA) claims brought under a theory of constructive fraud against its shareholders, finding no genuine issue of fact as to whether there was a transfer of the assets (Odyssey Reinsurance Co. v. Richard Keith Nagby, et al., No. 16-3038, S.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111794).
NEW YORK — Insurers argue in a June 12 memorandum to a New York federal court that there is support for their third-party allegations of fraudulent inducement and fraud and violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act in a receiver’s lawsuit seeking redress for damages arising out of a fraudulent scheme involving Platinum Partners Credit Opportunities Master Fund LP (PPCO funds) (In re Platinum-Beechwood litigation, No. 18-06658; Washington National Insurance Co., et al. v. Platinum Management [NY] LLC, et al., No. 18-12018, S.D. N.Y.).
BOSTON — In a dispute over outstanding reinsurance billings, underwriters argue in a June 27 reply to a Massachusetts federal court that an insurer’s arbitration demand involves the same settlement payments made to the same group of claimants regarding the same sexual molestation allegations (Century Indemnity Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, No. 19-11056, D. Mass.).
SAN DIEGO — In a fraudulent transfer case over a $3.2 million judgment, a California federal judge on June 27 ordered a principal to a reinsurer to deposit $688,083.17 in the court registry and issued a preliminary injunction against her for violating court orders (Odyssey Reinsurance Co. v. Richard Keith Nagby, et al., No. 16-3038, S.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108871).
NEW YORK — In response to 10 motions to dismiss its third-party complaint alleging aiding-and-abetting fraud and breach of fiduciary duty in a “massive fraudulent scheme,” a runoff insurer contends in a June 28 memorandum to a New York federal court that each moving defendant “attempts to pass the buck on responsibility for the egregious mishandling” of $320 million of its funds (Melanie L. Cyganowski v. Beechwood Re Ltd., et al., No. 18-12018, S.D. N.Y.).
BALTIMORE — In two cases over an alleged life insurance fraud scheme that shifted debt to reinsurers, plaintiffs and a life insurer tell a Maryland federal court in June 28 joint status reports that they reached a settlement agreement in principal and intend to move for case consolidation and preliminary approval of that agreement (Leslie S. Rich v. William Penn Life Insurance Company of New York, No. 17-2026, Richard Dickman, et al. v. Banner Life Insurance Co., No. 16-192, D. Md.).
HARRISBURG, Pa. — The U.S. government, which reinsured a promissory note for student loans, is entitled to a default judgment of $66,393.31 in its lawsuit seeking recovery under the promissory note for the loans, a Pennsylvania federal judge ruled June 27 (United States of America v. Neil P. Sunday, No. 18-00586, M.D. Pa., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107889).
BISMARCK, N.D. — A trial court did not err in refusing to determine that a partner breached her fiduciary duty to another partner by terminating a reinsurance company to start another reinsurance company, the North Dakota Supreme Court ruled June 27 (Elyse Puklich v. Blayne Puklich, et al., No. 20180301, N.D. Sup., 2019 N.D. LEXIS 153).
INDIANAPOLIS — A third-party claims administrator and a reinsurer agreed on June 28 to dismiss an Indiana federal court case over breach of contract claims for failure to pay fees under a master services agreement (Fuzion Analytics Inc. v. Beechwood Re Ltd., No. 18-03072, S.D. Ind.).
BROOKLYN, N.Y. — In a June 26 motion to dismiss a New York federal court lawsuit alleging that employers’ captive insurance and reinsurance scheme cheated home health aides out of lost wages and benefits, a captive insurer and its affiliates argue that the aides lack standing to assert a claim for engagement in prohibited transactions as nonfiduciary parties-in-interest in violation of Section 406(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (Ynes M. Gonzalez de Fuente, et al. v. Preferred Home Care of New York LLC, et al., No. 18-6749, E.D. N.Y.).
LINCOLN, Neb. — A Nebraska federal magistrate judge on June 26 stayed a workers’ compensation insurer’s dispute over a promissory note executed pursuant to a reinsurance participation agreement (RPA) until a pending lawsuit in New Jersey addresses whether the policies at issue in this federal case violated New Jersey law and regulations (Applied Underwriters Inc. v. Top’s Personnel Inc., No. 15-90, D. Neb.).
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico — A Puerto Rico federal judge issued a stay on June 25 of a dispute between an insurer and various of its reinsurers regarding losses from two hurricanes because the insurer was recently placed into rehabilitation proceedings (Integrand Assurance Co. v. Everest Reinsurance Co., et al., No. 19-01111, D. Puerto Rico).