By Robert M. Hall
NEW YORK — A reinsurer tells a New York federal court in a Sept. 11 letter that an insurer is not opposing its petition to confirm an arbitration award in a dispute over denied billings in a retrocessional reinsurance relationship (Continental Insurance Co. v. AXA Versicherung AG, No. 18-7349, S.D. N.Y.).
HARRISBURG, Pa. — The Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Oct. 15 declined to review a lower court’s ruling that reinsurance facultative certificates covered defense expenses in excess of a liability cap and that insurers were entitled to interest on certain proofs of loss for asbestos claims issued before 2013 (Century Indemnity Co. v. OneBeacon Insurance Co., No. 68 EM 2018, Pa. Sup., 2018 Pa. LEXIS 5398).
OKLAHOMA CITY — An Oklahoma federal judge on Oct. 12 administratively closed a dispute between an insolvent insurer’s receiver and an actuary services provider over allegations for failure to properly investigate and accurately report on the insurer’s financial standing and reinsurance contracts (Oklahoma ex rel., John D. Doak v. CTK Actuarial Services Inc., No. 17-371, W.D. Okla.).
NEW YORK — In a New York federal reinsurance coverage dispute for a trucking accident, a ceding insurer argues in an Oct. 11 partial summary judgment and opposition motion that a reinsurer failed to establish a late notice defense as well as prejudice (Endurance Assurance Corp. v. Florists’ Mutual Insurance Co., et al., No. 16-09955, S.D. N.Y.).
UTICA, N.Y. — In a dispute with an insurer over settlements of asbestos claims, a reinsurer in an Oct. 10 motion seeks reconsideration of a New York federal judge’s ruling because controlling evidence on the collateral estoppel issue and controlling decisions on the standing issue were overlooked (Utica Mutual Insurance Co. v. Century Indemnity Co., No. 13-995, N.D. N.Y.).
NEW YORK — An insurer in an Oct. 9 petition asks for a rehearing of the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals’ ruling that a reinsurer’s liability is expense‐supplemental because the reinsurer’s obligations under reinsurance contracts follow the insurer’s expense‐supplemental obligations under umbrella policies (Utica Mutual Insurance Co. v. Clearwater Insurance Co., Nos. 16-2535 & 16-2824, 2nd Cir.).
EL PASO, Texas — A Texas federal judge’s dismissal of a federal civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act claim from a lawsuit concerning a deceased car dealer’s estate is being appealed, according to an Oct. 9 notice given by two offshore reinsurers and their owner (Richard C. Poe II, et al. v. Anthony E. Bock, et al., No. 17-00232, W.D. Texas).
COLUMBIA, S.C. — In an Oct. 1 brief in South Carolina federal court, an insurer denies allegations asserted in a contractual indemnification counterclaim by a bank being sued for its role as trustee of a reinsurance trust for an insolvent insurer (Accident Insurance Company Inc. v. U.S. Bank National Association, et al., No. 16-2621, D. S.C.).
MILWAUKEE — In a dispute over periodic payments, a Wisconsin federal judge on Sept. 26 granted a reinsurer’s claim for interpleader and awarded $4,000 to the reinsurer in attorney fees (American General Life Insurance Co. v. Amanda Hebard, et al., No. 18-654, E.D. Wis.).
OKLAHOMA CITY — Reinsurance intermediaries in a Sept. 26 motion ask that an Oklahoma federal court compel an insolvent insurer’s receiver to produce a settlement agreement regarding an underlying action as it relates 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.).
BOSTON — Underwriters subscribing to reinsurance contracts in an Oct. 1 petition request that a Massachusetts federal court confirm an arbitration award regarding sexual molestation losses asserted against a reinsured’s policyholder, Boy Scouts of America (BSA) (Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London v. Century Indemnity Co., No. 18-12041, D. Mass.).
MIAMI — In a Sept 27 opposition to an excess reinsurer’s motion to dismiss, an international health insurer argues that a Florida federal court has subject matter jurisdiction over the insurer’s breach of contract lawsuit (VIP Universal Medical Insurance Group Ltd. v. BF&M Life Insurance Company Ltd., et al., No. 17-24633, S.D. Fla.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In seeking leave to file an amended complaint to recover a $26 million arbitration award, a financial services company argues in a Sept. 17 reply brief that a District of Columbia federal judge did not previously issue a decision on the merits of its case because the judge held only that he lacked personal jurisdiction over reinsurers (Vantage Commodities Financial Services I, LLC v. Assured Risk Transfer PCC, LCC, et al., No. 17-01451, D. D.C.).
DETROIT — In a breach of contract dispute over coverage for asbestos claims, a reinsurer and insurer on Sept. 14 submitted to a Michigan federal court their agreed-upon discovery plan (Amerisure Mutual Insurance Co. v. Transatlantic Reinsurance Co., No. 18-11966, E.D. Mich.).
By Debra J. Hall and Robert M. Hall
NEW YORK — In a Sept. 13 motion for summary judgment, a reinsurer argues to a New York federal court that its cedent breached the reinsurance contract by failing to timely notify the reinsurer of an underlying dispute involving a trucking accident (Endurance Assurance Corp. v. Florists’ Mutual Insurance Co., et al., No. 16-09955, S.D. N.Y.).
SYRACUSE, N.Y. — A reinsurer and insurer have settled their dispute over coverage for underlying asbestos claims, according to a New York federal judge’s Sept. 18 order (Utica Mutual Insurance Co. v. R&Q Reinsurance Co., No. 15-270, N.D. N.Y.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In breach of contract disputes over reinsurance participation agreements (RPA), the U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 1 denied petitions asking whether a choice-of-law clause imports “state substantive law without importing state rules impairing arbitration” or whether the clause incorporates “both state substantive law and state arbitration principles” (Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company Inc. v. Citizens of Humanity, et al., No. 18-174; Applied Underwriters Inc., et al. v. Citizens of Humanity, et al., No. 18-175, U.S. Sup.).
BALTIMORE — In a Sept. 26 complaint filed in a Maryland federal court, underwriters subscribing to a facultative reinsurance certificate seek a declaration that a reinsurance contract is void ab initio based on insurers’ failure to disclose certain information in their application (Certain Interested Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, subscribing to the facultative reinsurance certificate 2017100003409 v. American Casualty Company of Reading, Pa., et al., No. 18-02972, D. Md.).