OKLAHOMA CITY — An insolvent insurer’s receiver told an Oklahoma federal judge on Dec. 18 that a settlement has been reached with reinsurance intermediaries over a claim of negligence in reinsurance services provided to the insurer (Oklahoma, et al. v. Axiom Re LP, et al., No. 17-484, Oklahoma, et al. v. Brown & Brown Insurance Inc., et al., No. 17-700, W.D. Okla.).
LEXINGTON, Ky. — A Kentucky federal judge on Dec. 17 ordered a hearing to address whether he should again continue a jury trial in a lawsuit alleging that farmers defrauded the United States through the filing of false insurance claims reimbursed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and by making false statements and reports in connection with the federally reinsured crop insurance program (United States v. Bradley Price, et al., No. 18-cr-60, E.D. Ky.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a dispute over a $26 million arbitration award, a financial services company argues in a Dec. 17 brief that reinsurers provide no basis for a District of Columbia federal judge to reconsider his ruling allowing claims against the reinsurers for breach of an implied-in-fact contract, promissory estoppel and unjust enrichment to be added (Vantage Commodities Financial Services I, LLC v. Assured Risk Transfer PCC, LCC, et al., No. 17-01451, D. D.C.).
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — In two putative class actions over a reinsurance participation agreement (RPA) of hundreds of California businesses that bought a workers’ compensation program, plaintiffs argue in a Dec. 11 brief that a California federal court should certify a class because whether the program and RPA are illegal is a common question for all class members (Shasta Linen Supply Inc. v. Applied Underwriters Inc., et al., No. 16-00158, Pet Food Express Ltd., et al. v. Applied Underwriters Inc., et al., No. 16-01211, E.D. Calif.).
MONTGOMERY, Ala. — In a $1.3 million breach of contract dispute between a nonprofit public insurer and a reinsurer, an Alabama federal judge on Dec. 7 issued a final judgment in favor of the reinsurer based upon an arbitration panel’s recent award (Alabama Municipal Insurance Corp. v. Munich Reinsurance America Inc., No. 16-948, M.D. Ala.).
NEW YORK — Liquidators for two hedge funds filed a conspiracy and fraud complaint on Nov. 21 in a New York federal court in connection “with one of the most spectacular hedge fund collapses in recent memory” in which funds with an alleged net asset value (NAV) of nearly $1 billion turned out to not only be insolvent but also to have liabilities between $400 million and $800 million (Martin Trott, et al. v. Platinum Management (NY) LLC, et al., No. 18-10936, S.D. N.Y.).
PHOENIX — In a 140-page class action complaint filed Dec. 7, plaintiffs are seeking damages in an Arizona federal court for participants hurt by an alleged captive insurance scheme and unlawful conspiracy involving captive insurance strategies that would provide non-tax benefits (Dimitri Shivkov, et al. v. Artex Risk Solutions Inc., et al., No. 18-cv-04514, D. Ariz.).
NEW YORK — In a dispute over the alleged mismanagement and misuse of $320 million, a New York federal judge on Dec. 7 dismissed in part a run-off insurer’s tort and quasi-contract claims against a reinsurer and its entities but allowed the insurer to amend its complaint to assert additional allegations for some of the claims (Senior Health Insurance Company of Pennsylvania v. Beechwood Re Ltd., et al., No. 18-6658, S.D. N.Y., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 206536).
OMAHA, Neb. — In a dispute over an alleged breach of a reinsurance participation agreement (RPA), a Nebraska federal judge on Dec. 6 found that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the amount due pursuant to the parties’ agreement, precluding summary judgment (Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company Inc. v. Beemac Driver Management LLC, et al., No. 16-382, D. Neb., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 205825).
NEW YORK — In a dispute over reinsurance payments for construction site injuries, a New York federal judge on Dec. 6 said that an insolvent workers’ compensation insurer and British underwriters agreed to settle following a ruling by the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on an order vacating $1.5 million award (Certain Underwriting Members of Lloyds of London, et al. v. Insurance Company of the Americas, Nos. 16-323 & 16-374, S.D. N.Y.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a dispute over a $26 million arbitration award, reinsurers in a Dec. 5 motion request that a District of Columbia federal judge reconsider his ruling allowing a financial services company to amend its complaint to assert claims against them for breach of an implied-in-fact contract, promissory estoppel and unjust enrichment (Vantage Commodities Financial Services I, LLC v. Assured Risk Transfer PCC, LCC, et al., No. 17-01451, D. D.C.).
NEW YORK — In affirming the dismissal of breach of contract and bad faith claims, the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Dec. 6 agreed with a lower judge that an insurer’s settlement of a flood damage claim arising out of construction work and its reimbursement under a captive reinsurance agreement did not breach its contract to insureds (Keller Foundations LLC, et al. v. Zurich American Insurance Co., No. 18-1280, 2nd Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 34345).
OKLAHOMA CITY — In an administrative closing order, an Oklahoma federal judge on Dec. 3 noted that reinsurance intermediaries and the receiver for an insolvent insurer have reached a settlement as to the receiver’s lawsuit alleging negligence in reinsurance services provided to the insurer (Oklahoma, et al. v. Axiom Re LP, et al., No. 17-0484, W.D. Okla.).
SAN FRANCISCO — Citing “persuasive prior decisions,” the First District California Court of Appeal, Division Four, on Dec. 4 affirmed the denial of a reinsurer’s motion to compel arbitration under a reinsurance participation agreement (RPA) (Luxor Cabs Inc., et al. v. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Co., et al., No. A147962, Calif. App., 4th Dist., Div. 4, 2018 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 8223).
LOS ANGELES — Rejecting an insurer’s petition to proceed with a single arbitrator and a single umpire, a California federal judge on Dec. 3 ordered a reinsurer and the insurer to name umpires in accordance with a reinsurance treaty’s arbitration clause (Employers Insurance Company of Wausau v. The Hartford, No. 18-07240, C.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 205345).
HONOLULU — After a homeowner’s second amended complaint alleging unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the placement of insurance through “illegal kickback or captive reinsurance arrangements” was dismissed in part, a Hawaii federal magistrate judge on Nov. 28 ordered a settlement conference (Julia Wieck v. CIT Bank, N.A., et al., No. 16-00596, D. Hawaii).
NEW YORK — A New York federal judge on Nov. 29 stayed a reinsurer’s summary judgment motion and an insurer’s partial summary judgment motion regarding a late notice defense (Endurance Assurance Corp. v. Florists’ Mutual Insurance Co., et al., No. 16-09955, S.D. N.Y.).
DETROIT — A special master on Nov. 29 recommended that a Michigan federal court should deny an insurer’s motion for bifurcation of discovery in a breach of contract case against a reinsurer over reinsurance billings for asbestos claims (Amerisure Mutual Insurance Co. v. Transatlantic Reinsurance Co., No. 18-11966, E.D. Mich.).
UTICA, N.Y. — In the “latest chapter in a long-running dispute” between a reinsurer and insurer, a New York federal judge on Nov. 30 declined the reinsurer’s motion to reconsider an earlier ruling on issues of collateral estoppel and standing in the parties’ dispute over settlements of asbestos claims (Utica Mutual Insurance Co. v. Century Indemnity Co., No. 13-995, N.D. N.Y., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202819).
NEW YORK — Recognizing an exception to the doctrine of functus officio where an arbitration award is ambiguous, the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Nov. 28 held that arbitrators retained their authority to clarify an award requiring a reinsurer to pay up to an additional $18 million in reinsurance proceeds to an insurer (General Re Life Corp. v. Lincoln National Life Insurance Co., No. 17-2496, 2nd Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 33340).