AUSTIN, Texas — A reinsurer and an insolvent insurer, as debtors, ask a Texas federal bankruptcy court in a Nov. 12 brief to waive compliance requirements for $5 million in proceeds from a life insurance policy with the account where the proceeds are currently being held (In re: Capson Corp., et al., Nos. 19-10890, 19-10893 & 19-10894, W.D. Texas Bkcy.).
DETROIT — In a breach of contract dispute between an insurer and its reinsurer over reinsurance billings for underlying asbestos claims, a federal judge in Michigan on Nov. 1 issued a third stipulated order modifying the schedule order and joint discovery plan (Amerisure Mutual Insurance Co. v. Transatlantic Reinsurance Co., No. 18-11966, E.D. Mich.).
LINCOLN, Neb. — The Nebraska Court of Appeals on Nov. 12 upheld the dismissal of a reinsurer’s lawsuit seeking $4.8 million owed under a reinsurance participation agreement (RPA) because a trial court lacked personal jurisdiction (Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company, Inc. v. Sky Materials Corp., No. A-19-308, Neb. App., 2019 Neb. App. LEXIS 343).
NEW YORK — In a dispute arising out of a receiver’s lawsuit seeking redress for damages from of a “massive fraudulent scheme” involving hedge funds, insurers on Nov. 8 inform a New York federal court that they voluntarily dismiss claims against a third-party defendant for fraudulent inducement and violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act after previously doing so for other defendants (In re Platinum-Beechwood Litigation, No. 18-6658, Washington National Insurance Co., et al. v. Mark Nordlicht, et al., No. 18-12018, S.D. N.Y.).
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico — Reinsurers on Nov. 8 joined an opposition brief arguing to a Puerto Rico federal court that an insurer’s liquidator can be bound to arbitration clauses in the insurer’s reinsurance agreements in a dispute over $150 million in losses from two hurricanes (Integrand Assurance Co. v. Everest Reinsurance Co., et al., No. 19-01111, D. Puerto Rico).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Bermuda reinsurer in a Nov. 7 motion asks a District of Columbia federal court to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction a lawsuit filed by trustees of the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) pension plan over alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act from failing to make $934 million in withdrawal liability payments (Michael H. Holland, et al. v. Cardem Insurance Company Ltd., No. 19-02362, D. D.C.).
BOSTON — A Massachusetts federal magistrate judge on Nov 8 denied an insurer’s motion to compel production of documents from reinsurers over allocation and billing of a 2009 settlement with an insured because “the relevance of the materials sought is too speculative” (Certain London Market Company Reinsurers v. Lamorak Insurance Co., No. 18-10534, D. Mass.).
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico — A federal judge in Puerto Rico in a Nov. 6 docket entry denied, without explanation, a request by the Puerto Rico insurance commissioner and deputy commissioners to reconsider an order certifying their appeal as “frivolous” in a lawsuit alleging civil conspiracy to deprive constitutional rights to an insolvent insurer’s owners (Victor J. Salgado and Associates Inc., et al. v. Javier Rivera-Rios, et al., No. 19-1663, D. Puerto Rico).
DENVER — An investor argues in a Nov. 6 opening brief with the 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that he has a valid claim under Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act with regard to his dispute over an alleged reinsurance scheme and that the lower court erred in finding that the claim is reverse-preempted under the McCarran-Ferguson Act (Albert Ogles v. Guggenheim Investments, et al., No. 19-3154, 10th Cir.).
NEW YORK — Having completed restructuring steps, the foreign representative for an Irish reinsurer in a Nov. 5 notice seeks an order from a New York federal bankruptcy court closing the bankruptcy proceeding that recognized a foreign main liquidation proceeding concerning an alleged $1 billion deficit (In re Ballantyne Re Plc, Chapter 15, No. 19-11490, S.D. N.Y. Bkcy.).
NEW YORK — A runoff insurer on Nov. 4 voluntarily dismissed a third-party defendant from allegations of aiding and abetting a Ponzi-like scheme 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. PB Investment Holdings Ltd., et al., No. 18-12018, S.D. N.Y.).
NEW YORK — An insurer on Oct. 31 filed a notice of appeal in the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals of a New York federal judge’s decision to stay the insurer’s new arbitration of reinsurance billings for asbestos losses because a prior arbitration panel retained jurisdiction to decide the matter (Chicago Insurance Co. v. General Reinsurance Corp., et al., No. 18-10450, S.D. N.Y.).
UTICA, N.Y. — An insurer argues in a Nov. 1 opposition brief to a New York federal court that a reinsurer failed to show a “complete absence of evidence” for a $6.25 million jury verdict in a dispute concerning two separate reinsurance certificates and coverage for settlements of asbestos claims (Utica Mutual Insurance Co. v. Century Indemnity Co., No. 13-995, N.D. N.Y.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A U.S. Court of Federal Claims judge on Oct. 31 dismissed for lack of jurisdiction insolvent insurer liquidators’ state law claims against the U.S. government over violation of South Carolina insurance law following the government’s offset of $36 million under the reinsurance program of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) (Raymond G. Farmer, et al. v. The United States, No. 18-1484, Fed. Clms., 2019 U.S. Claims LEXIS 1584).
NEW YORK — A runoff insurer argues in an Oct. 30 opposition brief that a New York federal judge should deny reconsideration of a decision to defer ruling on an investment company’s former executive’s post-acquittal relief for advancement of $708,784.77 in legal fees and costs until the U.S. government’s appeal of a judgment acquitting the former executive in a related criminal action has been decided (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 — A New York bankruptcy judge on Oct. 8 confirmed that an automatic stay issued in a reinsurer’s bankruptcy proceeding does not preclude an insurer from reimbursing defense costs (In re Beechwood Re, No. 19-11560, Chapter 15, S.D. N.Y. Bkcy.).
JASPER, Ala. — An Alabama federal court should dismiss a woman’s claims against an insurer in a lawsuit against the city of Jasper and its employees over sexual misconduct in a jail allegations because no subject matter jurisdiction exists, the insurer argues in an Oct. 10 reply brief (Whitley Goodson v. J.C. Poe Jr., et al., No. 19-1399, N.D. Ala.).
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico — A federal judge in Puerto Rico on Oct. 30 denied a request to stay proceedings pending an appeal by the Puerto Rico insurance commissioner and deputy commissioners because there are sufficient plausible facts asserted to support a claim of a civil conspiracy to deprive constitutional rights to an insolvent insurer’s owners (Victor J. Salgado and Associates Inc., et al. v. Javier Rivera-Rios, et al., No. 19-1663, D. Puerto Rico).
NEW YORK — A trustee of a family irrevocable trust sued a life insurer and reinsurer on Oct. 22 in New York federal court over the cost of insurance rate increases imposed on life insurance policies to “reap substantially more profit” for the companies (C. Anthony Gonzalez v. The Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York, et al., No. 19-09750, S.D. N.Y.).
ATLANTA — A car dealership and reinsurer argue in an Oct. 7 reply brief that the Georgia Court of Appeals should find a vehicle service contracts administrator liable for interest at the rate of 8 percent per annum on the balance of an arbitration award while the contracts administrator argues on the same day that the court should vacate the $462,781 arbitration award as there is no evidence other than the arbitrator “simply dictating new and different terms than the parties agreed upon” (Adventure Motorsports Reinsurance Ltd., et al. v. Interstate National Dealer Services Inc., No. A20A0036, Interstate National Dealer Services Inc. v. Adventure Motorsports Reinsurance Ltd., et al., No. A20A0037, Ga. App.).