BOSTON — In a dispute over outstanding reinsurance billings for settlement payments made over sexual molestation allegations, an insurer argues in a July 19 surreply that a Massachusetts federal court should reject underwriters’ arguments regarding application of New York law and the parties’ intention to have a court rule on disputes that billings are barred by prior arbitration awards, which were raised for the first time in their reply brief to a motion to dismiss (Century Indemnity Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, No. 19-11056, D. Mass.).
NEW YORK — A federal judge in New York on July 23 denied reconsideration of his ruling on the allocation of advancement of expenses in several lawsuits connected to a runoff insurer’s case over allegations of misuse of $320 million by affiliates of a failed Ponzi scheme (In re: Platinum-Beechwood Litigation, No. 18-6658, David Levy v. Senior Health Insurance Company of Pennsylvania, No. 19-3211, S.D. N.Y., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123735).
OMAHA, Neb. — A reinsurer and its affiliates on July 26 asked a Nebraska federal court to dismiss insureds’ fourth amended answer, counterclaims and third-party claims and to strike a request for punitive damages in their breach of contract dispute over a workers’ compensation program involving a reinsurance participation agreement (RPA) (Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company Inc. v. Ramesh Pitamber & Kusum Pitamber, et al., No. 17-61, D. Neb.).
RICHMOND, Va. — In an insurance bad faith action against an insurer for its failure to defend an insured in a construction defect action, the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on July 25 remanded to a district court for instructions in accordance with the South Carolina Supreme Court’s ruling that “denying liability and/or asserting good faith in the answer does not, standing alone,” waive attorney-client privilege for claim files addressing the insurer’s reinsurance and reserves (In re: Mt. HawleyInsuranceCo., No. 18-1401, 4th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 22356).
NEW YORK — In a case alleging that a reinsurer and its affiliates sold insurance policies that charged rates not approved by regulators, a New York federal judge on July 27 denied certification of a class of New York businesses that purchased workers’ compensation coverage from the defendants because insureds failed to show that the class action procedure would be “superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy” (National Convention Services LLC, et al. v. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company Inc., et al., No. 15-07063, S.D. N.Y., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125810).
ALBANY, N.Y. — A New York federal judge on July 25 denied a reinsurer’s motion for partial summary judgment in an asbestos coverage dispute after determining that an ambiguity exists as to whether defense costs paid by an insurer on behalf of an insured are covered under the reinsurance policies at issue (Utica Mutual Insurance Co. v. Clearwater Insurance Co., No. 13-1178, N.D. N.Y., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124077).
SAN FRANCISCO — A reinsurer on July 18 appealed a California federal judge’s confirmation of a final arbitration award to the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in a dispute 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.).
MONTGOMERY, Ala. — An Alabama federal judge on July 17 dismissed a civil conspiracy claim against a disability life insurer in an insured’s breach of contract and bad faith case against the insurer and a reinsurer over the denial of disability benefits (Horace R. Theriot Jr. v. The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co., et al., No. 18-688, M.D. Ala.).
NEW YORK — To the extent that a New York bankruptcy court recognizes a foreign proceeding, creditors and parties in interest to a reinsurer’s bankruptcy proceeding ask in a July 16 motion that they be allowed to bring their claims against the debtor in their own proceedings and that those litigations not be subject to any stay (In re Beechwood Re, No. 19-11560, Chapter 15, S.D. N.Y. Bkcy.).
SAN DIEGO — A California federal magistrate judge on July 16 confirmed a settlement reached between a reinsurer and claims processor and its CEO over allegations that they assisted in fraudulently transferring assets belonging to an insolvent insurance agency to avoid paying a $3.2 million judgment (Odyssey Reinsurance Co. v. Richard Keith Nagby, et al., No. 16-3038, S.D. Calif.).
UTICA, N.Y. — A reinsurer argues in a July 15 reply brief that a New York federal judge should reconsider a decision on the issue of collateral estoppel because a recent decision in a similar case “marks a major new development in this case” and requires dismissal of an insurer’s breach of contract claim in a case over coverage for settlements of asbestos claims (Utica Mutual Insurance Co. v. Century Indemnity Co., No. 13-995, N.D. N.Y.).
SUFFOLK, Mass. — A Massachusetts justice on June 19 denied a motion to compel filed by reinsurers in an environmental contamination coverage dispute after determining that the reinsurers failed to prove that discovery regarding an insurer’s declaratory judgment action against an insured is relevant to whether coverage exists for a settlement between the insurer and the insured (Lamorak Insurance Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, No. 1884CV00200-BLS2, Mass. Super., Suffolk, 2019 Mass. Super. LEXIS 385).
OSLO, Norway — A Norwegian insurer sustained a $8.65 million loss in an arbitration dispute with its reinsurer over claims related to a 2017 fire in London, according to a July 10 filing.
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico — An insurer’s rehabilitator on July 8 asked a Puerto Rico federal judge to lift a stay of a dispute between the insurer and various of its reinsurers regarding losses from two hurricanes and then remand the case to the insurer’s rehabilitation proceeding (Integrand Assurance Co. v. Everest Reinsurance Co., et al., No. 19-01111, D. Puerto Rico).
CHICAGO — A reinsurer asks an Illinois federal court in a July 8 motion to award it attorney fees and costs because an insolvent insurer’s liquidator’s motion to vacate a $437,000 arbitration award has “no chance of success” (Catalina Holdings [Bermuda] Ltd. v. Jennifer Hammer, No. 18-5642, N.D. Ill.).
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico — An insolvent insurer’s stock owner, its president and vice president sued the Puerto Rico insurance commissioner and others on July 11 in a federal court in Puerto Rico, alleging that defendants engaged in a civil conspiracy to deprive them of their constitutional rights (Victor J. Salgado and Associates Inc., et al. v. Javier Rivera-Rios, et al., No. 19-01663, D. Puerto Rico).
DETROIT — A Michigan federal judge on July 12 dismissed a second amended complaint in farmers’ putative class action against crop insurers and the federal agencies that reinsure crop insurers over allegations that the defendants are liable for loss of revenue protection in 2015 because the federal agencies failed to use the actual market price as the harvest price to provide revenue protection under a dry bean revenue endorsement (DBRE) (Gregory Ackerman, et al. v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, et al., No. 17-11779, E.D. Mich., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116080).
KANSAS CITY, Kan. — In a dispute over an alleged reinsurance scheme, a Kansas federal judge on July 12 ruled that an investor’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act claim involving the financial strength of an investment company is reverse-preempted under the McCarran-Ferguson Act and that a RICO theory alleging the fraudulent design of the annuity at issue fails to state a claim (Albert Ogles v. Security Benefit Life Insurance Co., et al., No. 18-02265, D. Kan., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116147).
NEW YORK — A New York bankruptcy judge on July 10 denied a liquidator’s application for provisional relief staying a decision not yet issued in a New York federal court on a motion seeking an order requiring a reinsurer to post $250 million in additional security (In re Beechwood Re, No. 19-11560, Chapter 15, S.D. N.Y. Bkcy., 2019 Bankr. LEXIS 2077).
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).