HARRISBURG, Pa. — The liquidator of Reliance Insurance Co. in an Oct. 13 application asks a Pennsylvania trial court for an order approving her recommendation on the last notices of determination (NODs) for state guaranty associations, which includes an allowed amount of $16.9 million for class (e) claims (In re: Reliance Insurance Co. in liquidation, No. 1 REL 2001, Pa. Cmwlth.).
NEW YORK — A former member of Platinum Management (NY) LLC on Sept. 29 asked a New York federal court to preclude any references to punitive damages in his trial over a breach of fiduciary claim regarding the collapse of hedge funds and to exclude punitive damages from the jury’s instructions (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.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — An arbitration clause containing no delegation of gateway questions to arbitrator means a court, not an arbitrator, decides arbitrability, Archer and White Sales Inc., a dental product company, argues in its respondent brief filed Oct. 13 in the U.S. Supreme Court, adding that incorporation of American Arbitration Association (AAA) rules doesn’t change anything (Henry Schein Inc. v. Archer and White Sales Inc., No. 19-963, U.S. Sup.).
NEWARK, N.J. — An industrial equipment supplier on Oct. 13 asked a New Jersey federal court to enter a default against an insurance company in its breach of contract case regarding the insurer’s refusal to pay for an environmental investigation and remediation at its property (Industrial Corner Corp. v. Public Service Mutual Insurance Company, No. 20-6677, D. N.J.).
BOSTON — A federal magistrate judge in Massachusetts on Oct. 13 compelled in part an insurer to provide certain information in a privilege log on how it allocated a $120 million settlement of environmental claims for purposes of its reinsurance billings (Certain London Market Company Reinsurers v. Lamorak Insurance Co., No. 18-10534, D. Mass., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189115).
NEW YORK — An English reinsurer in an Oct. 13 memorandum says that under New York law, general fee-shifting rules are procedural and, therefore, a New York federal court should deny an umbrella insurer’s request for $400,000 in attorney fees and expert costs incurred in successfully litigating a dispute with the reinsurer over responsibility for an environmental claims settlement (The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania v. Equitas Insurance Limited, No. 17-6850, S.D. N.Y.).
LOS ANGELES — Four insurers argue in their Oct. 9 opposition brief to a California federal court that the parent companies of a reinsurer are “straddling a line” that does not exist under California law in seeking to dismiss their lawsuit alleging intentional interference and inducement of breach of contract with regard to reinsurance billings (California Capital Insurance Company, et al. v. Enstar Holdings [US] LLC, et al., No. 20-7806, C.D. Calif.).
CINCINNATI — An insurer argues in its Oct. 9 appellant brief to the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that all the elements of claim preclusion have been met and, therefore, the appellate court should reverse a lower court’s denial of its motion to dismiss an insured’s breach of contract and bad faith suit arising out of the insured’s liability for underlying asbestos claims (William Powell Company v. National Indemnity Company, et al., No. 20-3737, 6th Cir.).
BROOKLYN, N.Y. — Relying on a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, a New York federal judge on Oct. 9 dismissed a lawsuit brought by home health aides against their employers and a captive reinsurer because they lack standing under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act to challenge the management of their defined-benefit retirement plan (Ynes M. Gonzalez de Fuente, et al. v. Preferred Home Care of New York LLC, et al., No. 18-6749, E.D. N.Y.).
SEATTLE — A federal judge in Washington on Oct. 1 extended the date for a jury trial by eight months in a breach of contract case between a reinsurer and an association of state public entities (Washington Cities Insurance Authority v. Ironshore Indemnity Inc., No. 19-54, W.D. Wash.).
MIAMI — A theater operator voluntarily dismissed a French reinsurance company on Oct. 5 from its proposed class action in a Florida federal court for pandemic loss more than a month after the reinsurer sought dismissal on the basis that it was not a party to the all-risk insurance policy at issue (Actors Playhouse Productions, Inc. v. SCOR SE, et al., No. 20-22981, S.D. Fla.).
BOSTON — Citing an English reinsurer's recent insolvency and bankruptcy proceedings, a federal judge in Massachusetts on Oct. 5 issued a further stay of a reinsurance billings dispute over the allocation of a $120 million settlement of environmental claims (Certain London Market Company Reinsurers v. Lamorak Insurance Co., No. 18-10534, D. Mass.).
LOS ANGELES — In seeking dismissal of four insurers' dispute over the mishandling of reinsurance billings, the parent companies of the reinsurer on Oct. 2 argue to a California federal court that it "is blackletter law that agents cannot be liable for intentional interference with contracts or for inducing a principal to breach those contracts" (California Capital Insurance Company, et al. v. Enstar Holdings [US] LLC, et al., No. 20-7806, C.D. Calif.).
FORT WORTH, Texas — Noting its dispute has been ongoing for more than two years, an insurance agent in an Oct. 2 brief tells a Texas federal court that there is no reason to dismiss its declaratory judgment action regarding a Cayman Islands reinsurer's potential future demands for the return of any premiums under a quota share reinsurance agreement (Contractor Managing General Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Greenlight Reinsurance, Ltd., No. 20-996, N.D. Texas).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 5 declined to review whether a "good farming practices" dispute between a farmer and a federally reinsured crop insurer can be resolved in private arbitration or must proceed through an administrative review process as provided for under the Federal Crop Insurance Act (FCIA) (Terry R. Balvin v. Rain and Hail LLC, No. 20-3, U.S. Sup.).
UTICA, N.Y. — A reinsurer was awarded $756,566.83 in bill of costs by the clerk of court on Sept. 30 against an umbrella insurer following a New York federal court's vacating of a $64 million jury verdict against the reinsurer in their breach of contract dispute concerning asbestos coverage (Utica Mutual Insurance Co. v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Co., No. 09-853, N.D. N.Y.).
NEW YORK — An umbrella insurer in a Sept. 29 memorandum of law requests from a New York federal judge close to $400,000 in attorney fees and expert costs that it incurred in successfully litigating its dispute with an English reinsurer over responsibility for the insurer's environmental claims settlement over a Dole Food Co. subsidiary's California housing development (The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania v. Equitas Insurance Limited, No. 17-6850, S.D. N.Y.).
WILMINGTON, Del. — In a coverage suit over a $73.21 million medical malpractice verdict, insureds argues in a Sept. 28 supplemental brief to a Delaware court that a Bermuda health care umbrella insurer is a "certified reinsurer" in the state and that jurisdictional discovery is permitted on its parents, subsidiaries and affiliates' operations (Steadfast Insurance Company v. Community Health Systems, Inc., et al., No. N18C-11-127, Del. Super., New Castle Co.).
NEW YORK — Guy Carpenter & Co. LLC sued an insurer on Sept. 29 in a New York federal court for $770,000 of brokerage withheld by the insurer over placement of reinsurance (Guy Carpenter & Company, LLC v. Safepoint Insurance Company, No. 20-8063, S.D. N.Y.).
NEW YORK — While a reinsurer challenges an insurer's request for a money judgment, with prejudgment interest, for $459,625.22 in ceded losses paid by the insurer that were not secured, the insurer argues in a Sept. 10 reply brief to a motion to correct and amend that the relief it seeks is based upon a previous summary judgment motion and a New York federal judge's decision (AmTrust North America, Inc. v. Signify Insurance Ltd., et al., No 18-3779, S.D. N.Y.).