ATLANTA — A vehicle service contracts administrator argues in an Aug. 27 appellant brief to the Georgia Court of Appeals that a lower court erred in confirming a $462,971 arbitration award in favor of a car dealership and a reinsurer, while the car dealership and reinsurer argue in a cross-appeal filed the same day that the lower court failed to award attorney fees (Adventure Motorsports Reinsurance Ltd., et al. v. Interstate National Dealer Services Inc., No. A20A0036, and Interstate National Dealer Services Inc. v. Adventure Motorsports Reinsurance Ltd., et al., No. A20A0037, Ga. App.).
BROOKLYN, N.Y. — Home health aides ask a New York federal court in a Sept. 13 reply to strike a captive reinsurer’s motion to dismiss their lawsuit accusing the reinsurer and affiliates of a scheme to cheat the aides out of lost wages and benefits because the reinsurer should be required to post a $25 million bond before any pleading is accepted (Ynes M. Gonzalez de Fuente, et al. v. Preferred Home Care of New York LLC, et al., No. 18-6749, E.D. N.Y.).
SAN FRANCISCO — Insureds argue in their Aug. 15 brief before a California appeals court that a lower court never reached a joint and several liability issue because the lower court properly found insufficient evidence to support a damages claim by a reinsurer and its related entities for amounts owed under a reinsurance participation agreement (RPA) (Warwick California Corp., et al. v. Applied Underwriters Inc., et al., No. A155523, Calif. App., 1st Dist., Div. 4).
NEW YORK — A New York federal judge on Sept. 12 ruled on a runoff insurer’s advancement of litigation expenses under investment management agreements (IMAs) for third-party actions arising out of the initial fraud lawsuit filed by the runoff insurer over the mismanagement and misuse of $320 million (In re: Platinum-Beechwood Litigation, No. 18-6658, B Asset Manager L.P., et al. v. Senior Health Insurance Company of Pennsylvania, No. 19-4487, S.D. N.Y.).
BOSTON — An insurer in a Sept. 13 motion asks a Massachusetts federal court to compel reinsurers to produce documents and interrogatory responses relating to their allocation and billing of its own 2009 settlement with an insured in a separate matter (Certain London Market Company Reinsurers v. Lamorak Insurance Co., No. 18-10534, D. Mass., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38909).
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico — An insolvent insurer’s stock owner, its president and vice president lack standing to seek redress of claimed damages in their lawsuit alleging a civil conspiracy to deprive them of their constitutional rights, the Puerto Rico insurance commissioner and others argue in a Sept. 3 motion to dismiss filed in a Puerto Rico federal court (Victor J. Salgado and Associates Inc., et al. v. Javier Rivera-Rios, et al., No. 19-1663, D. Puerto Rico).
TRENTON, N.J. — An insurer on Aug. 27 removed to a New Jersey federal court a breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing lawsuit regarding the insurers’ handling of payments for underlying asbestos claims and the indemnification the insurers sought under facultative reinsurance agreements (Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, et al. v. The North River Insurance Co., et al., No. 19-17231, D. N.J.).
UTICA, N.Y. — Before a jury trial, a New York federal judge on Sept. 13 addressed a reinsurer and an insurer’s various motions in limine seeking rulings on the admissibility of certain matters in their dispute over the insurer’s breach of contract claim concerning coverage for settlements of asbestos claims (Utica Mutual Insurance Co. v. Century Indemnity Co., No. 13-995, N.D. N.Y.).
DALLAS — Because insurance policies are not “unconscionable adhesion contracts” and an insured’s due process rights were not violated, an insurer argues in a Sept. 11 reply to a Texas federal court that it is entitled to summary judgment on a declaratory judgment claim concerning an increase in premium costs because it followed an assumption reinsurance agreement and another insurer’s rehabilitation plan (Don B. Chae v. American Fidelity Assurance Co., No. 19- 157, N.D. Texas).
SAN DIEGO — In a dispute over the alleged fraudulent transfer of assets belonging to an insolvent insurance agency to avoid payment of a $3.2 million judgment, a California federal judge on Aug. 30 ordered that a $2.5 million transfer by a principal for the agency is avoided under the California Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA) and dismissed claims against a technology company and its CEO pursuant to a $750,000 settlement with a reinsurer (Odyssey Reinsurance Co. v. Richard Keith Nagby, et al., No. 16-3038, S.D. Calif.).
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — An insured failed to demonstrate any economic loss from entering into a reinsurance participation agreement (RPA) and, thus, lacks standing to sue under California unfair competition law (UCL), a California federal judge ruled Sept. 12, finding that the RPA as part of a workers’ compensation program is not illegal and void (Pet Food Express Ltd. v. Applied Underwriters Inc., et al., No. 16-01211, E.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156198).
NEW YORK — A federal judge in New York on Sept. 10 granted summary judgment to a runoff insurer because a criminal conviction against an investment company’s former executive extinguishes rights to indemnification and advancement of litigation expenses under investment management agreements (IMAs) (In re: Platinum-Beechwood Litigation, No. 18-6658, David Levy v. Senior Health Insurance Company of Pennsylvania, No. 19-3211, S.D. N.Y.).
NEW YORK — Senior Health Insurance Company of Pennsylvania (SHIP) on Sept. 4 filed amended cross-claims and a third-party complaint, alleging a Ponzi-like scheme consisting of reinsurance companies and related investment management and servicing entities in which fraudulent misrepresentations were made to gain investment control and discretion over $320 million of the runoff insurer’s reserves (In re Platinum-Beechwood litigation, No. 18-6658; Senior Health Insurance Company of Pennsylvania v. Beechwood Re Ltd., et al., No. 18-6658; Martin Trott, et al. v. Platinum Management (NY) LLC, et al., No. 18-10936, Melanie L. Cyganowski v. Beechwood Re Ltd., et al., Senior Health Insurance Company of Pennsylvania v. Beechwood Re Ltd., et al., and Senior Health Insurance Company of Pennsylvania v. PB Investment Holdings Ltd., et al., No. 18-12018, S.D. N.Y.).
LOS ANGELES — A reinsurer and its entities on Aug. 14 filed three petitions in a California court for a writ of administrative mandamus compelling the state’s insurance commissioner to vacate decisions that voided a reinsurance participation agreement (RPA) in workers’ compensation insurance policies (California Insurance Co. v. Ricardo Lara, et al., Nos. 19STCP03478, 19STCP03473 and 19STCP03476, Calif. Super., Los Angeles Co.).
NEW YORK — A New York federal judge on Aug. 20 addressed and granted in part five motions to dismiss a first amended complaint, 10 motions to dismiss reinsurers’ third-party complaint and 14 motions to dismiss a runoff insurer’s third-party complaint in a lawsuit over a $320 million “massive fraudulent scheme” filed by a receiver of investment funds (In re Platinum-Beechwood Litigation, No. 18-6658, Melanie L. Cyganowski, et al. v. Beechwood Re Ltd., et al., No. 18-12018, S.D. N.Y.).
NEW YORK — While dismissing the majority of a reinsurer and its entities’ counterclaims, a New York federal judge on Sept. 3 allowed a breach of good faith and fair dealing counterclaim against a runoff insurer to survive in a case over the misuse and mismanagement of $320 million (In re Platinum-Beechwood Litigation; Senior Health Insurance Company of Pennsylvania v. Beechwood Re Ltd., et al., No. 18-6658, S.D. N.Y., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149708).
NEW YORK — A New York justice on Aug. 26 dismissed Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (BHI) because there are no allegations showing that its activities are sufficient to support general jurisdiction in three lawsuits alleging a scheme, in violation of the New York insurance law, to induce companies to enter into a reinsurance participation agreement (RPA) as a condition of issuance of workers’ compensation insurance policies (Breakaway Courier Corp. v. Berkshire Hathaway Inc., et al., No. 654806/2016, Current Lighting & Electric Inc., et al. v. Berkshire Hathaway Inc., et al., No. 652316/2017, Alternative Fuels Transportation Inc. v. Berkshire Hathaway Inc., et al., No. 652702/2017, N.Y. Sup., New York Co., 2019 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 4671).
DALLAS — While an insurer says it is entitled to summary judgment on an insured’s declaratory judgment claim concerning the ability to raise premium costs because it followed an assumption reinsurance agreement and a rehabilitation plan involving another insurer, the insured on Aug. 28 asked a Texas federal court to deny the motion because there is a genuine dispute of material fact (Don B. Chae v. American Fidelity Assurance Co., No. 19- 157, N.D. Texas).
BRIDGEPORT, Conn. — A reinsurer and its affiliates in an Aug. 27 letter tell a federal judge in Connecticut that an insured’s request to compel discovery is premature and that the insured should be compelled to provide discovery on other workers’ compensation insurance programs (Charter Oak Oil Co. Inc. v. Applied Underwriters Inc., et al., No. 17-00689, D. Conn.).
SAN FRANCISCO — On Aug. 27, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals granted a reinsurer’s voluntary dismissal of its appeal over the confirmation of a final arbitration award over fees allegedly owed under two reinsurance participation agreements (RPAs) (Mike Rose’s Auto Body Inc. v. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company Inc., No. 19-16410, 9th Cir.).