NEW YORK — In a May 17 complaint, a reinsurer seeks an order of specific performance under reinsurance and retrocession agreements from a New York federal court with regard to the release of excess assets in an operating account and, alternatively, asserts breach of contract (TAKATA Reinsurance Inc. v. AIU Insurance Company Ltd., No. 19-04586, S.D. N.Y.).
SAN FRANCISCO — An insurer on May 20 notified a California federal court of its voluntary dismissal of a case against reinsurers for failing to pay amounts under facultative reinsurance contracts in connection with liability to asbestos personal injury claims (Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania v. Transport Insurance Co., et al., No. 19-01532 N.D. Calif.).
NEW YORK — A reinsurance company in a May 16 petition asks a New York federal bankruptcy court to recognize its liquidation proceedings pending in a Cayman Islands court and to place a stay on several securities fraud cases in which it is being accused of operating as an alter ego of a hedge fund (In re Beechwood Re, Chapter 15, No. 19-11560, S.D. N.Y. Bkcy.).
OMAHA, Neb. — In a breach of contract dispute, a reinsurer and its subsidiaries, which are part of workers’ compensation program involving a reinsurance participation agreement (RPA), argue in a May 15 filing in Nebraska federal court that investment companies waived their right to arbitrate claims and that the reinsurer and subsidiaries have no duty to arbitrate (Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company Inc. v. Ramesh Pitamber & Kusum Pitamber, et al., No. 17-61, D. Neb.).
RIVERSIDE, Calif. — A reinsurer in a May 15 motion asks a California federal court to order arbitration, dismissal or a stay of an insurer’s breach of contract dispute concerning reimbursement of $8.6 million for payment of equipment breakdown claims (Nationwide Agribusiness Insurance Co. v. The Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Co., No. 19-00531, C.D. Calif.).
HARRISBURG, Pa. — In a May 14 reply in support of a stay to arbitration over lead paint losses pending an appeal, a reinsurer argues to a Pennsylvania federal judge that an insurer’s irreparable harm and public interest arguments have no merit (Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Co. v. Everest Reinsurance Co., No. 18-mc-653 c/w No. 18-mc-656, M.D. Pa.).
NEW YORK — An Irish reinsurer of life insurance policies on May 7 sought to have a New York federal bankruptcy court recognize 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.).
CAMDEN, N.J. — In separate May 6 opposition briefs, an institutional investor and a pension trust argue that a New Jersey federal court should deny requests to consolidate related securities class actions against a reinsurer and former executive officers regarding allegations of misrepresentation in underwriting and risk management techniques and a reinsurance portfolio’s risk (Michael Wigglesworth v. Maiden Holdings Ltd., et al., No. 19-05296, D. N.J.).
RALEIGH, N.C. — A North Carolina reinsurance facility argues in a March 26 brief to the state’s appellate court that a trial court erred in remanding its denial of reimbursement to a motor vehicle insurer for an $11 million bad faith settlement because the insurer’s “short-lived, ill-advised 1-800 claims reporting procedure directly created the conditions for that bad faith judgment” (The North Carolina Reinsurance Facility v. Mike Causey, et al., No. COA 18-1303, N.C. App.).
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico — An insurer argues in a May 10 motion in a Puerto Rico federal court that a reinsurer’s motion to dismiss its dispute regarding hurricane losses should be denied because the reinsurance agreement’s arbitration clause “is vague and ambiguous” (Integrand Assurance Co. v. Everest Reinsurance Co., et al., No. 19-01111, D. Puerto Rico).
NEW YORK — In a run-off insurer’s case over misuse allegations of $320 million with affiliates of a failed Ponzi scheme, a New York federal judge on May 13 denied summary judgment to the affiliates on their counterclaim for advancement of expenses incurred in connection with this lawsuit because investment management agreements (IMAs) do not indemnify expenses incurred in this lawsuit (In re: Platinum-Beechwood Litigation; Senior Health Insurance Company of Pennsylvania v. Beechwood Re Ltd., et al., No. 18-6658, and David Levy v. Senior Health Insurance Company of Pennsylvania, No. 19-3211, S.D. N.Y., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81271).
NEW YORK — A defendant argues in a May 10 motion that a New York federal court should dismiss two hedge funds’ liquidators’ second amended complaint (SAC) with regard to allegations in connection “with one of the most spectacular hedge fund collapses” (Martin Trott, et al. v. Platinum Management [NY] LLC, et al., No. 18-10936, S.D. N.Y.).
DETROIT — Federal agencies that reinsure crop insurers say in a May 13 motion that they do not oppose the certification of a class in a Michigan federal lawsuit filed by a putative class of farmers against the crop insurers and the federal agencies but that the farmers’ motion includes requests for class relief, which the federal agencies argue are premature (Gregory Ackerman, et al. v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, et al., No. 17-11779, E.D. Mich.).
CONCORD, N.H. — Reinsurers argue in a May 10 reply brief that a New Hampshire federal court does not have exclusive jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) to decide a breach of contract dispute over $22 million in outstanding reinsurance billings (United States Fire Insurance Co., et al. v. Equitas Insurance Ltd., et al., No. 18-01205, D. N.H.).
DES MOINES, Iowa — Under Iowa law, a majority of the state’s high court on May 10 ruled that a common-law cause of action for bad faith failure to pay workers’ compensation benefits is not available against a workers’ compensation insurer’s third-party claims administrator (Samuel De Dios v. Indemnity Insurance Company of North America, et al., No. 18-1227, Iowa Sup., 2019 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 56).
BOSTON — An insurer petitioned a Massachusetts federal court on May 6 to compel it and its reinsurer to arbitrate their dispute regarding outstanding reinsurance billings (Century Indemnity Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, No. 19-11056, D. Mass.).
CHICAGO — An insolvent insurer’s liquidator asked an Illinois federal court on May 3 to vacate or modify a $437,000 attorney fees award in a reinsurer’s case seeking confirmation of that award because the arbitration panel “exceeded their powers” and the award “manifestly disregards the law” (Catalina Holdings (Bermuda) Ltd. v. Jennifer Hammer, No. 18-5642, N.D. Ill.).
HARRISBURG, Pa. — Citing irreparable harm and public interest favoring arbitration, an insurer on May 1 argues against a reinsurer’s motion for a stay of a Pennsylvania federal judge’s order compelling arbitration of their reinsurance coverage dispute over lead paint losses arising in the Maryland area in light of the reinsurer’s pending appeal (Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Co. v. Everest Reinsurance Co., No. 18-mc-653 c/w No. 18-mc-656, M.D. Pa.).
CONCORD, N.H. — Insurers argue in an April 30 brief that a New Hampshire federal court is the natural forum to hear a breach of contract dispute over $22 million in outstanding reinsurance billings because the reinsurers are based in Nebraska, England, Japan, the Netherlands, Switzerland and Uruguay (United States Fire Insurance Co., et al. v. Equitas Insurance Ltd., et al., No. 18-01205, D. N.H.).
OMAHA, Neb. — Investment companies were granted permission on May 2 by a Nebraska federal magistrate judge to file a third amended answer, counterclaim and cross-claim in a 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., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74280).