OMAHA, Neb. — A reinsurer and its affiliates moved to dismiss counterclaims on June 7 in their breach of contract dispute over a workers’ compensation program, telling a Nebraska federal court that the counterclaims “are a hodgepodge of conclusory allegations and unsupported assertions that fail to meet basic pleading standards” (Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company Inc. v. Ramesh Pitamber & Kusum Pitamber, et al., No. 17-61, D. Neb.).
WILMINGTON, Del. — Two limited liability companies and liquidators for one of the companies filed a 101-page complaint in a Delaware state court on June 7, alleging breach of fiduciary duty with regard to transactions involving reinsurance agreements (Principal Growth Strategies LLC, et al. v. AGH Parent LLC, et al., No. 2019-0431, Del. Chan.).
RIVERSIDE, Calif. — Because its breach of contract dispute concerns whether coverage exists for $8.6 million in equipment breakdown claims and does not concern the interpretation of a reinsurance agreement, an insurer argues on June 5 that a California federal court should deny a reinsurer’s request to arbitrate or dismiss (Nationwide Agribusiness Insurance Co. v. The Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Co., No. 19-00531, C.D. Calif.).
DETROIT — A Michigan federal judge on June 4 issued a modified schedule order and joint discovery plan in an insurer’s breach of contract dispute against a reinsurer over reinsurance billings for underlying asbestos claims (Amerisure Mutual Insurance Co. v. Transatlantic Reinsurance Co., No. 18-11966, E.D. Mich.).
CAMDEN, N.J. — In separate reply briefs filed May 13, an institutional investor and a pension trust each argue to a New Jersey federal court that they have the largest financial interest to serve as lead plaintiff in securities class actions against a reinsurer and former officers over 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.).
NEW YORK — A reinsurer and the liquidator for Home Insurance Co. informed a New York federal judge on May 30 that they voluntarily dismiss a third-party action following the dismissal of the main action over proceeds allegedly owed to the insolvent insurer under three facultative reinsurance certificates (Roger A. Sevigny v. Trygvesta Forsikring A/S, Trygvesta Forsikring A/S v. Cerberus Holding Company LLC, No. 16-4874, S.D. N.Y.).
RALEIGH, N.C. — A panel of the North Carolina Court of Appeals on June 4 reversed a lower court’s order, which upheld the state’s insurance commissioner’s order reversing the North Carolina reinsurance facility’s denial of reimbursement to a motor vehicle insurer for an $11 million bad faith settlement and remanded to the commissioner (The North Carolina Reinsurance Facility v. Mike Causey, et al., No. COA 18-1303, N.C. App., 2019 N.C. App. LEXIS 495).
NEW YORK — Calling the allegations against it the “written equivalent of a Russian nesting doll,” an investment holdings company argues in a May 31 reply brief that a New York federal court should dismiss a second amended complaint filed by two hedge funds’ liquidators concerning the alleged massive fraud scheme that caused the hedge funds’ collapse (Martin Trott, et al. v. Platinum Management [NY] LLC, et al., No. 18-10936, S.D. N.Y.).
NEW YORK — A fund sued an insurer on May 30 in a New York federal court for tortiously interfering by initiating reorganization proceedings under Irish law with the fund’s contractual rights regarding notes purchased from a reinsurer (ESM Fund I, L.P. v. Ambac Assurance UK Ltd., No. 19-5066, S.D. N.Y.).
NEW YORK — A New York federal judge on May 29 consolidated two lawsuits alleging breach of policies by a life insurer’s unlawful increase of premium costs to recoup costs associated with an acquisition and appointed a law firm as the sole interim class counsel (Derek Fan v. PHL Variable Life Insurance Co., No. 18-01288; Advance Trust & Life Escrow Services, et al. v. PHL Variable Life Insurance Co., No. 18-3444, S.D. N.Y., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89896).
NEW YORK — In response to a motion to dismiss a second amended complaint (SAC), two hedge funds’ liquidators argue in a May 29 brief to a New York federal court that an investment holdings company should not be permitted “to evade responsibility for the substantial assistance it provided” in an alleged massive fraud scheme that caused the hedge funds’ collapse (Martin Trott, et al. v. Platinum Management [NY] LLC, et al., No. 18-10936, S.D. N.Y.).
NEW YORK — A New York federal judge on May 28 signed a stipulation of voluntary dismissal from an insurer and a reinsurer concerning their $3.85 million reinsurance dispute involving underlying workers’ compensation losses (In re arbitration between National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA v. Federal Insurance Co., No. 16-8821, S.D. N.Y.).
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico — In a Puerto Rico federal court dispute against reinsurers regarding hurricane losses, an insurer argues in its May 28 surreply that the text of an arbitration clause is vague and ambiguous regardless of whether the insurer has filed arbitration proceedings (Integrand Assurance Co. v. Everest Reinsurance Co., et al., No. 19-01111, D. Puerto Rico).
CHICAGO — A reinsurer tells an Illinois federal court in a May 24 opposition that an insolvent insurer’s liquidator seeks to vacate or modify a $437,000 arbitration award for attorney fees “not because of the purported reason that the panel exceeded its authority in issuing the award, but because it does not agree with the panel’s interpretation of the parties’ contracts” (Catalina Holdings [Bermuda] Ltd. v. Jennifer Hammer, No. 18-5642, N.D. Ill.).
SEATTLE — A reinsurer in a May 23 motion asks a Washington federal court to compel arbitration of a breach of contract case brought by an association of Washington public entities regarding settlement of a lawsuit over police officers’ alleged excessive force (Washington Cities Insurance Authority v. Ironshore Indemnity Inc., No. 19-00054, W.D. Wash.).
MONTGOMERY, Ala. — An Alabama federal judge on May 17 denied a motion to uphold confidentiality designationin a disability benefits dispute after determining that the insurers failed to prove how they would be harmed if a number of exhibits are disclosed (Horace R. Theriot Jr. v. The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co. et al., No. 18-688, M.D. Ala., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87538).
BOSTON — Underwriters in a May 23 motion seek dismissal of an insurer’s Massachusetts federal court case seeking to compel arbitration of their dispute regarding outstanding reinsurance billings for sexual molestation because the underwriters argue that the dispute has already been resolved (Century Indemnity Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, No. 19-11056, D. Mass.).
HARRISBURG, Pa. — Pending a reinsurer’s appeal, a Pennsylvania federal judge on May 22 stayed his order compelling arbitration of a reinsurance coverage dispute over lead paint losses arising in the Maryland area (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 — A former managing director for investment companies on May 20 responded to insurers’ third-party allegations of fraudulent inducement and fraud and violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act in a receiver’s New York federal court lawsuit, seeking redress for damages arising out of a “massive fraudulent scheme” involving Platinum Partners Credit Opportunities Master Fund LP (PPCO funds) (Melanie L. Cyganowski, as equity receiver for Platinum Partners Credit Opportunities Master Fund LP, et al. v. Beechwood Re Ltd., et al. & Washington National Insurance Co., et al. v. Moshe M. Feuer, et al., No. 18-12018, S.D. N.Y.).
SAN FRANCISCO — The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on May 21 dismissed an appeal in a case over a $3.2 million judgment with regard to a lower court’s order directing $958,017.66 in funds in the court registry to an reinsurer as judgment creditor (Odyssey Reinsurance Co. v. Richard Keith Nagby, et al., No. 19-55423, 9th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 15060).