NEW YORK — A New York bankruptcy judge on July 23 recognized a reinsurer’s foreign main proceeding and overruled limited objections filed by a receiver and liquidators of various hedge funds who argued that they should be allowed to bring their claims against the debtor in their own proceedings (In re Beechwood Re, No. 19-11560, Chapter 15, S.D. N.Y. Bkcy.).
BRIDGEPORT, Conn. — An insured in an Aug. 2 letter is asking a federal judge in Connecticut for assistance in resolving a disagreement between it and defendants regarding responses to written discovery requests in its dispute over a series of workers’ compensation insurance and reinsurance contracts (Charter Oak Oil Co. Inc. v. Applied Underwriters Inc., et al., No. 17-00689, D. Conn.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Trustees of the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) pension plan filed a lawsuit in District of Columbia federal court on Aug. 6 alleging that a Bermuda reinsurance company violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act when it failed to make $934 million in withdrawal liability payments to the pension fund (Michael H. Holland, et al. v. Cardem Insurance Company Ltd., No. 19-02362, D. D.C.).
NEW YORK — An alleged insider argues in an Aug. 2 reply brief to a New York federal court that it should reconsider a ruling regarding allegations in a second amended complaint (SAC) of his role in what two hedge funds’ liquidators describe as “one of the most spectacular hedge fund collapses” because he “sat on the opposite side of the table” from the funds and his only duty was to himself and to the entities he controlled (In re Platinum-Beechwood Litigation, No. 18-6658, Martin Trott, et al. v. Platinum Management [NY] LLC, et al., No. 18-10936, S.D. N.Y.).
NEW YORK — A runoff insurer argues in an Aug. 1 motion that a recent criminal conviction of an investment company’s former executive confirms that he is not entitled to contractual advancement and indemnification of expenses and legal fees in connection with several lawsuits arising from the runoff insurer’s 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.).
SAN FRANCISCO — The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on July 31 dismissed two separate appeals concerning a lower court’s findings that there are fact issues over a reinsurer’s claim that there was a fraudulent transfer to avoid a $3.2 million judgment under theories of both actual and constructive fraud (Odyssey Reinsurance Co. v. David Dostalik, et al., No. 19-55575 & Odyssey Reinsurance Co. v. Claims Technology Services Corp., et al., No. 19-55576, 9th Cir.).
DALLAS — A Texas federal judge on July 30 denied an insured’s application for a preliminary injunction because the insured cannot demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits in his dispute over his insurer’s ability to raise premium costs due to an assumption reinsurance agreement and a rehabilitation plan involving another insurer (Don B. Chae v. American Fidelity Assurance Co., No. 19- 157, N.D. Texas, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127563).
BROOKLYN, N.Y. — In response to a motion to dismiss a case alleging that a captive insurance and reinsurance scheme cheated home health aides out of lost wages and benefits, the aides argue in a July 26 brief to a New York federal court that a captive insurer and affiliates’ “flawed” standing argument cannot keep out Employee Retirement Income Security Act claims (Ynes M. Gonzalez de Fuente, et al. v. Preferred Home Care of New York LLC, et al., No. 18-6749, E.D. N.Y.).
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).