NEW YORK — A New York federal judge on Nov. 1 issued a protective order regarding discovery in a case between a run-off insurer, reinsurers and the reinsurers’ related entities over allegations of mismanagement and misuse of $320 million in investments (Senior Health Insurance Company of Pennsylvania v. Beechwood Re Ltd., et al., No. 18-06658, S.D. N.Y.).
HONOLULU — Addressing motions to dismiss, a Hawaii federal judge on Nov. 2 dismissed in part claims in a homeowner’s second amended complaint alleging unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the placement of insurance, “with unreasonable and inflated premiums” that included “improper compensation through illegal kickback or captive reinsurance arrangements” (Julia Wieck v. CIT Bank, N.A., et al., No. 16-00596, D. Hawaii, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188022).
AKRON, Ohio — An insurer notified an Ohio federal court on Nov. 7 that it was voluntarily dismissing its petition requesting appointment of an umpire for an arbitration panel regarding a dispute under a reinsurance agreement (Envision Insurance Co. v. Hannover Life Reassurance Company of America, No. 18-02047, N.D. Ohio).
NEW YORK — In an Oct. 16 complaint filed in a New York federal court, the Securities and Exchange Commission alleges that two individuals “perpetrated multiple schemes to defraud their advisory clients, which were insurance companies and reinsurance trusts” (Securities and Exchange Commission v. Alexander C. Burns, et al., No. 18-09477, S.D. N.Y.).
CHICAGO — An insolvent insurer’s liquidator on Oct. 29 moved to remand a reinsurer’s Illinois federal court dispute seeking confirmation of an arbitration award for $437,000 in attorney fees and also filed its reply to a previous motion to dismiss or stay based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction (Catalina Holdings [Bermuda] Ltd. v. Jennifer Hammer, No. 18-05642, N.D. Ill.).
NEW YORK — An insurance company on Oct 19 filed an amicus curiae brief in support of a rehearing by the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals of its ruling that a reinsurer’s liability follows an insurer’s expense‐supplemental obligations under umbrella policies because the insurer says the decision is “contrary to bedrock principles of reinsurance law and sound public policy favoring settlements” (Utica Mutual Insurance Co. v. Clearwater Insurance Co., Nos. 16-2535 & 16-2824, 2nd Cir.).
SAN DIEGO — In a case over breached reinsurance agreements from fraudulent transfers, a California federal judge on Oct. 15 allowed an insurance broker’s former owner time to respond to why she should not be held in contempt of court regarding an injunction order (Odyssey Reinsurance Co. v. Richard Keith Nagby, et al., No. 16-3038, S.D. Calif.).
NEW YORK — In a New York federal case alleging mismanagement and misuse of $320 million in investments, a run-off insurer argues in an Oct. 29 opposition that reinsurers and related entities fail to address allegations of their active participation in a fraudulent conspiracy in their motion to partially dismiss claims (Senior Health Insurance Company of Pennsylvania v. Beechwood Re Ltd., et al., No. 18-06658, S.D. N.Y.).
DETROIT — A reinsurer and insurer in separate Oct. 12 briefs argue for and against bifurcated discovery in a breach of contract Michigan federal court case over coverage for asbestos claims (Amerisure Mutual Insurance Co. v. Transatlantic Reinsurance Co., No. 18-11966, E.D. Mich.).
MIAMI — The owner of a plastics manufacturing plant that suffered a fire loss sued the government of the Republic of Nicaragua, a Nicaraguan insurer and a New York reinsurer on Oct. 17 in a Florida federal court for breach of contract and unjust enrichment (Farouk Morales v. The Government of the Republic of Nicaragua, et al., No. 18-24301, S.D. Fla.).
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A reinsurer and its affiliates in an Oct. 12 opposition brief ask that a California federal court deny classification in two putative class actions over a reinsurance participation agreement (RPA) of hundreds of California businesses that bought a workers’ compensation program (Shasta Linen Supply Inc. v. Applied Underwriters Inc., et al., Nos. 16-00158 & 16-01211, E.D. Calif.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 29 denied certiorari review of the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals’ finding that the U.S. government's termination of insurers and reinsurers’ lawsuits pursuant to a claims settlement agreement between it and Libya and its subsequent legislation and executive order did not constitute a compensable taking under the Fifth Amendment (Aviation & General Insurance Company Ltd., et al. v. United States, No. 17-1164, U.S. Sup.).
BALTIMORE — In a dispute over a life insurer’s alleged hiding of its financial status under captive reinsurance schemes and the insurer’s cost of insurance (COI) rate increases, a Maryland federal judge on Oct. 24 scheduled the discovery deadline in the case for March 8, 2019 (Leslie S. Rich v. William Penn Life Insurance Company of New York, No. 17-2026, D. Md.).
KANSAS CITY, Kan. — In a Kansas federal court lawsuit alleging that life insurers and a financial services firm depleted the life insurers’ surplus assets by reinsuring their risks with one another rather than using “arm’s-length reinsurance treaties,” a total value annuity investor voluntarily dismissed a bank without prejudice on Oct. 24 (Albert Ogles v. Security Benefit Life Insurance Co., et al., No. 18-02265, D. Kan.).
CHARLESTON, S.C. — A South Carolina federal judge on Oct. 24 declined to stay a coverage dispute over a defectively constructed project for an in camera review and instead ordered an insurer to produce documents pertaining to reinsurance and reserves (ContraVest Inc., et al. v. Mt. Hawley Insurance Co., No. 15-00304, D. S.C., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182196).
RICHMOND, Va. — A health care plan’s payments under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) reinsurance program do not constitute a tax, a panel of the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals said Oct. 23 (The Electrical Welfare Trust Fund, et al. v. United States, et al., No. 17-1937, 4th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 29856).
RIVERSIDE, Calif. — A violation by a reinsurer and related entities of California Insurance Code Section 11658 renders arbitration provisions unenforceable, a California appeals panel held Oct. 19, affirming a lower court’s denial of motions to compel arbitration of a dispute involving workers’ compensation insurance (Low Desert Empire Pizza Inc., et al. v. Applied Underwriters Inc., et al., No. E067081, Calif. App., 4th Dist., Div. 2, 2018 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 7154).
MONTGOMERY, Ala. — A reinsurer’s motion to dismiss breach of contract, bad faith and fraud claims should be denied, according to a plaintiff’s Oct. 16 brief in an Alabama federal court over the denial of benefits under four long-term disability insurance policies (Horace R. Theriot Jr. v. The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co., et al., No. 18-688, M.D. Ala.).
NEW YORK — In a run-off insurer’s New York federal case alleging mismanagement and misuse of $320 million in investments, reinsurers, their affiliates and current and former owners, officers and insiders in an Oct. 15 motion seek partial dismissal of all claims that are duplicative of the ones for breach of contract (Senior Health Insurance Company of Pennsylvania v. Beechwood Re Ltd., et al., No. 18-06658, S.D. N.Y.).
CHICAGO — Opposing a request for dismissal by an insolvent insurer’s liquidator, a reinsurer argues in an Oct. 15 brief that an Illinois federal court has jurisdiction to confirm an arbitration award for $437,000 in attorney fees (Catalina Holdings (Bermuda) Ltd. v. Jennifer Hammer, No. 18-05642, N.D. Ill.).