CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa — A life insurer’s motion to dismiss claims for breach of contract, bad faith and declaratory judgment was denied by an Iowa federal judge on July 11 in a purported class action accusing the insurer of improperly transferring reserve funds through reinsurance transactions (Karen McMahon, et al. v. Transamerica Life Insurance Co., No. 17-149, N.D. Iowa, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115260).
PHILADELPHIA — A Pennsylvania federal judge on July 11 dismissed a lawsuit over an alleged kickback insurance premium scheme involving insurers, reinsurers and lenders (Nelson White Jr., et al. v. The PNC Financial Services Group Inc., et al., No. 11-7928, E.D. Pa.).
BRIDGEPORT, Conn. — An insurer and reinsurers submitted a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice on July 11 of their breach of contract dispute in the Connecticut federal court regarding an underlying asbestos claims settlement (Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., et al., No. 18-00088, D. Conn.).
CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa — In a purported class action alleging that a life insurer improperly transferred reserve funds through reinsurance transactions, an Iowa federal judge on July 11 declined to dismiss breach of contract and bad faith claims (Suzanne Fairlie, et al. v. Transamerica Life Insurance Co., et al., No. 18-32, N.D. Iowa, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115257).
NEW YORK — In a reinsurance coverage dispute for a trucking accident, a New York federal judge on June 21 issued a stipulated amended scheduling order that all discovery including any depositions of experts is to be completed on or before Aug. 6 (Endurance Assurance Corp. v. Florists’ Mutual Insurance Co., et al., No. 16-09955, S.D. N.Y.).
RICHMOND, Va. — A reinsurer on May 7 asked the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to grant its renewed motion to compel arbitration, arguing that a lower federal court improperly denied the motion after finding that the reinsurance participation agreement (RPA) was an insurance contract pursuant to Virginia Code Section 38.2-312 (Minnieland Private Day School v. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company Inc., 17-2385, 4th Cir.).
LOS ANGELES — A landscape company filed a notice of appeal on July 6 regarding a California federal judge’s final judgment issued that same day confirming a reinsurer’s $82,130.44 arbitration award against it (Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company Inc. v. O’Connell Landscape Maintenance Inc., No. 18-00683, C.D. Calif.).
NEW YORK — A New York federal judge issued a stipulated protective order June 20 regarding confidential information in a dispute over reinsurance proceeds allegedly owed to an insolvent insurer (Roger A. Sevigny v. Trygvesta Forsikring A/S, Trygvesta Forsikring A/S v. Cerberus Holding Company LLC, No. 16-04874, S.D. N.Y.).
TRENTON, N.J. — Examining the Nonadmitted and Reinsurance Reform Act of 2010 (NRRA), a New Jersey tax judge on June 15 found that Johnson & Johnson’s (J&J) insurance premium tax due is based on all premiums for risks located within the United States, and not solely on an allocation of risks within New Jersey (Johnson & Johnson v. Director, Division of Taxation and Commissioner, Department of Banking and Insurance, No. 013502-2016, N.J. Tax, 2018 N.J. Tax LEXIS 10).
MINNEAPOLIS — An insurer wrote a letter to a Minnesota federal court on June 8 to inform it that a settlement agreement has been reached in a breach of contract lawsuit arising from an alleged failure to reimburse unpaid defense costs in a settlement of an underlying workers’ compensation claim after reinsurance initially provided coverage (Berkley Risk Administrators Co. LLC, et al. v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, No. 17-04765, D. Minn.).
SAN DIEGO — In a dispute over breached reinsurance agreements from fraudulent transfers, a reinsurer argues in a June 29 reply brief that a California federal court has “no legitimate reason” not to release direct payment of $734,702.68 currently held in a registry to it as well as assigning it the right to collect directly from a trust $370,714.13, in partial satisfaction of its $3.2 million judgment (Odyssey Reinsurance Co. v. Richard Keith Nagby, et al., No. 16-3038, S.D. Calif.).
NEW YORK — In a coverage dispute stemming from the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, a New York federal judge on June 25 awarded insurers damages of $527,598,884.69 under reinsurance contracts, in addition to prejudgment interest (In re: Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, No. 03-MDL-1570, Continental Casualty Co. v. Al Qaeda Islamic Army, No. 04-5970, S.D. N.Y., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108722).
ST. JOSEPH, Mo. — A Missouri federal judge on June 25 ordered the dismissal without prejudice of a lawsuit that had been stayed pending arbitration of the dispute regarding a reinsurance participation agreement (RPA) (Hillyard Inc. v. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company Inc., No. 16-6062, W.D. Mo.).
SYRACUSE, N.Y. — A New York federal judge on June 27 addressed motions to bar testimony and evidence such as on follow the fortunes and follow the settlements in a dispute over whether the reinsurer is obligated to pay $3.2 million in reinsurance proceeds for the insurer’s defense expenses from an asbestos claims settlement (Utica Mutual Insurance Co. v. Munich Reinsurance America Inc., Nos. 12-00196 & 13-00743, N.D. N.Y., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106970).
HONOLULU — In a lawsuit alleging unfair or deceptive acts or practices by placing “unnecessary” insurance, with “unreasonable and inflated premiums” that included “improper compensation through illegal kickback or captive reinsurance arrangements,” banks and insurers on June 15 filed several motions to dismiss a second amended complaint filed in a Hawaii federal court (Julia Wieck v. CIT Group Inc., et al., No. 16-00596, D. Hawaii).
By Jonathan Bank and Matthew Murphy
FRESNO, Calif. — A used-vehicle seller and its affiliates, including an illegal shell reinsurance company, are accused of being involved in three fraudulent schemes in the sale of used vehicles and violating California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, according to a June 18 complaint filed in a California court (Carlos Alvarenga v. Paul Blanco’s Good Car Company Fresno Inc., et al., No. 18CECG02193, Calif. Super., Fresno Co.).
SAN DIEGO — In a dispute over breached reinsurance agreements from fraudulent transfers, a defendant on June 22 opposed a motion filed in a California federal court directing payment of $734,702.68 currently held in a registry to a reinsurer as well as assigning the reinsurer the right to collect directly from a trust $370,714.13, in partial satisfaction of its $3.2 million judgment (Odyssey Reinsurance Co. v. Richard Keith Nagby, et al., No. 16-3038, S.D. Calif.).
LOS ANGELES — A California federal judge on June 25 confirmed a reinsurer’s $82,130.44 arbitration award against a landscape company (Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company Inc. v. O’Connell Landscape Maintenance Inc., No. 18-00683, C.D. Calif.).
LINCOLN, Neb. — In a breach of contract dispute, a reinsured showed that it made a “prompt application” to set aside a default judgment entered in favor of a reinsurer and demonstrated a meritorious defense, the Nebraska Supreme Court ruled June 22, reversing and remanding with directions to vacate the default judgment (Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company Inc. v. Oceanside Laundry LLC, No. S-17-576, Neb. Sup., 2018 Neb. LEXIS 118).