NEW YORK — An insurer in Jan. 15 brief asks a New York federal court for summary judgment on its claims against a reinsurer for breach of its obligation to post $1.6 million in collateral under a reinsurance agreement and to declare that the reinsurer remains required to post that collateral (AmTrust North America Inc. v. Signify Insurance Ltd., et al., No 18-3779, S.D. N.Y.).
NEW YORK — A New York federal judge on Jan. 13 dismissed a third-party defendant from a runoff insurer’s allegations of aiding and abetting in a Ponzi-like scheme where fraudulent misrepresentations were made to gain investment control over $320 million of the runoff insurer’s reserves (In re Platinum-Beechwood litigation, No. 18-6658; Senior Health Insurance Company of Pennsylvania v. PB Investment Holdings Ltd., et al., No. 18-12018, S.D. N.Y.).
NEW YORK — While hedge fund liquidators’ counsel “acted in blatant disregard” in an opposition brief to a corporate insider’s motion to dismiss claims concerning the hedge fund’s misuse and mismanagement, a New York federal judge on Jan. 13 denied monetary sanctions on “the possibility that counsel were simply carried away by overzealousness rather than acting in bad faith” (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., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5676).
NEW YORK — A New York federal bankruptcy judge on Jan. 13 closed an Irish reinsurer’s bankruptcy proceeding that recognized a foreign main liquidation proceeding concerning an alleged $1 billion deficit (In re Ballantyne Re Plc, Chapter 15, No. 19-11490, S.D. N.Y. Bkcy.).
NEW YORK — Insurers on Jan. 10 told a New York federal court that they are voluntarily stipulating to the dismissal of an investment company from their third-party lawsuit, which arises out of a dispute originally filed by a receiver seeking redress for damages from of a “massive fraudulent scheme” involving hedge funds (In re Platinum-Beechwood Litigation, No. 18-6658, Washington National Insurance Co., et al. v. Mark Nordlicht, et al., No. 18-12018, S.D. N.Y.).
NEW YORK — The U.S. government argues in a Jan. 7 opening brief that the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals should reinstate securities fraud convictions against two former executives of a hedge fund with regard to their alleged role in the hedge fund’s scheme to transfer assets to a reinsurance company and related entities to defraud bondholders in an oil and gas company (United States of America v. Uri Landesman, et al., No. 19-3207 c/w 19-3209, 2nd Cir.).
NEW YORK — A runoff insurer on Dec. 19 appealed to the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals four orders dealing with the advancement of fees and expenses under investment management agreements (IMAs) for third-party actions arising out of the runoff insurer’s initial fraud lawsuit over the mismanagement and misuse of $320 million (B Asset Manager L.P., et al. v. Senior Health Insurance Company of Pennsylvania, No. 19-4239, 2nd Cir.).
HARRISBURG, Pa. — A federal judge in Pennsylvania on Jan. 7, “effective immediately,” lifted a stay in a reinsurance dispute over lead paint losses so that an insurer and its reinsurer can select a new arbitration panel to decide whether the arbitration should be consolidated with another arbitration involving two other reinsurers (Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Co. v. Everest Reinsurance Co., No. 18-mc-653, M.D. Pa.).
SAN FRANCISCO — In a dispute over payment for workers’ compensation insurance, a California appeals panel on Jan. 7 dismissed an appeal regarding a trial court’s statement of decision (SOD) that neither side proved damages elements in breach of contract claims because the SOD is not a judgment or an appealable order (Warwick California Corp., et al. v. Applied Underwriters, Inc., et al., No. A155523, Calif. App., 1st Dist., Div. 4, 2020 Cal. App. LEXIS 13).
CHICAGO — The Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Jan. 6 dismissed an insurance fund’s appeal of a ruling that the fund failed to show the application of an alter-ego exception to the general rule of no liability for a railroad company’s stockholder and failed to prove that a de facto merger occurred in its reinsurance dispute over payments for mine subsidence damages (Illinois Mine Subsidence Insurance Fund v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., No. 19-2965, 7th Cir.).
CHICAGO — Arbitrators intended their second award to be final and, thus, an Illinois federal court should confirm that award and not the interim award under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), an insurer argues in a Jan. 3 reply brief in its dispute with a reinsurer over billings for asbestos claims (Allstate Insurance Co. v. Amerisure Mutual Insurance Co., No. 19-4341; Amerisure Mutual Insurance Co. v. Allstate Insurance Co., No. 19-7080, N.D. Ill.).
SAN FRANCISCO — A reinsurer argues in a Jan. 3 reply that the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals should reverse an order denying its motion to intervene in a dispute over a $3.2 million judgment and remand to allow the reinsurer to proceed with its claims against another reinsurer, which is the judgment creditor (Odyssey Reinsurance Co. v. Richard Keith Nagby, et al. v. Knight Insurance Company Ltd., Nos. 19-55346, 19-55347, 19-55423, 9th Cir.).
NEW YORK — In two separate matters against a defendant, an alleged corporate insider, over misuse and mismanagement in a hedge fund scheme, a federal judge in New York on Jan. 2 dismissed hedge fund liquidators’ claims for civil conspiracy and violation of civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act and dismissed a runoff insurer’s third-party claims for civil conspiracy and unjust enrichment (In re Platinum-Beechwood Litigation, No. 18-6658, Martin Trott, et al. v. Platinum Management [NY] LLC, et al., No. 18-10936; Melanie L. Cyganowski, et al. v. Beechwood Re Ltd., et al., No. 18-12018, S.D. N.Y., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 223443).
NEW YORK — Following the unredacted submission of all documents previously filed under seal, a federal judge in New York on Dec. 27 closed the litigation between a reinsurer and insurers concerning an arbitration award in favor of the reinsurer over losses under a second blanket casualty excess of loss reinsurance agreement (TIG Insurance Co. v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, et al., No. 19-10238, S.D. N.Y.).
HARRISBURG, Pa. — Following an affirmance by the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, an insurer in a Dec. 23 brief asks a Pennsylvania federal judge to lift a stay regarding an order compelling the insurer and its reinsurer to arbitrate their dispute over lead paint losses (Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Co. v. Everest Reinsurance Co., No. 18-mc-653, M.D. Pa.).
UTICA, N.Y. — A reinsurer on Dec. 27 told a New York federal court that it is appealing a $6.25 million judgment in favor of an insurer and prior adverse orders in a dispute between the parties over coverage under two separate reinsurance certificates for settlements of asbestos claims (Utica Mutual Insurance Co. v. Century Indemnity Co., No. 13-995, N.D. N.Y.).
JASPER, Ala. — Citing no subject matter jurisdiction, an insurer in a Dec. 27 motion asks an Alabama federal court to dismiss a former female prison inmate’s claim seeking a declaratory judgment as a judgment creditor of the insurer’s rights under reinsurance agreements in her lawsuit alleging sexual misconduct in a jail (Jessica Rainer v. J.C. Poe Jr., et al., No. 19-1392, N.D. Ala.).
SAN DIEGO — A California federal judge on Dec. 27 awarded $218,246 to a reinsurer for the contemptuous conduct of an insolvent insurance agency’s principal regarding a preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order in a dispute over the alleged fraudulent transfer of the agency’s assets to avoid payment of a $3.2 million judgment (Odyssey Reinsurance Co. v. Richard Keith Nagby, et al., No. 16-3038, S.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 221812).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The liquidators for an insolvent insurer gave notice on Dec. 23 that they are appealing a U.S. Court of Federal Claims judge’s dismissal of their state law claims against the U.S. government over violation of South Carolina insurance law following the government’s offset of $36 million under the reinsurance program of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) (Raymond G. Farmer, et al. v. The United States, No. 18-1484, Fed. Clms.).
DENVER — A majority of the 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled Dec. 23 that a reinsurer established the requirements for intervention as of right in an insured’s lawsuit against its insurer over the alleged failure to comply with a universal life policy’s terms (Robert Barnes v. Security Life of Denver Insurance Co., No. 18-1487, 10th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 38242).