NEW YORK — Hedge funds liquidators filed several opposition briefs on Oct. 19 to the motions brought by a former member of Platinum Management (NY) LLC seeking to preclude certain evidence and claims ahead of his New York federal court trial regarding the former member’s alleged role in the hedge funds’ collapse (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.).
NEW YORK — An umbrella insurer says in its Oct. 20 reply brief that a New York federal court should award $400,000 in attorney fees and expert costs to it under English law as the prevailing party in a dispute with an English 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.).
MIAMI — In “an unusual procedural posture,” an English reinsurer preemptively removed a not-yet-filed third-party bad faith complaint to Florida federal court, individuals who were awarded a $844 million default judgment in connection with a plane crash near Medellin, Colombia, argue in their Oct. 19 motion for remand to state court where the original suit was filed (Priscila Elen De Souza Lima, et al. v. Linea Aerea Merida Internacional De Aviacion, et al., No. 20-23631, S.D. Fla.).
MISSOULA, Mont. — A Montana federal judge on Oct. 22 ordered a joint risk pool for state counties to arbitrate its breach of contract dispute with a group of underwriters subscribing to a reinsurance agreement with regard to their failure to indemnify settlements of two underlying wrongful imprisonment lawsuits (Montana Association of Counties Property and Casualty Trust v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, No. 19-196, D. Mont., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 196613).
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Applied Underwriters Inc. filed a complaint on Oct. 20 in California federal court accusing the state’s insurance department of an “unlawful and bad faith campaign” to place a former affiliate of Applied into conservatorship in response to several favorable rulings to Applied in litigation involving its reinsurance participation agreement (RPA) with insureds (Applied Underwriters, Inc., et al. v. Ricardo Lara, et al., No. 20-1029, E.D. Calif.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The District of Columbia Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Oct. 16 declined the Republic of Argentina’s petition for a rehearing en banc on its vacating of a denied emergency motion for attachment-related relief and remanding for a decision on whether property belonging to the country was “used for a commercial activity” and, thus, could be attached to an insurer’s $33 million arbitration award to satisfy Argentina’s reinsurance debts (TIG Insurance Company v. Republic of Argentina, et al., No. 19-7087, D.C. Cir.).
DETROIT — A ceding insurer filed a first amended breach of contract complaint on Oct. 16 in a Michigan federal court against its reinsurer, seeking the balance of $2.5 million for reinsurance billings related to asbestos claims owed to the cedent under a 1981 facultative certificate (Amerisure Mutual Insurance Co. v. Transatlantic Reinsurance Co., No. 18-11966, E.D. Mich.).
NEW YORK — A reinsurer is responsible for its portion of a $35 million settlement of asbestos claims, a New York federal judge ruled Oct. 19, finding that the reinsurer is bound to an insurer’s allocation under the “follow-the-fortunes” doctrine (Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company v. OneBeacon Insurance Company, No. 14-4718, S.D. N.Y., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192996).
NEW YORK — A 1973 reinsurance certificate only covers an insurer’s expenses that were covered by the insurance policy, a reinsurer argues in its Oct. 15 appellee brief to the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals asking that the court uphold a lower court’s finding of no breach of contract with regards to denied asbestos billings of $2.7 million (Utica Mutual Insurance Company v. Munich Reinsurance America, Inc., No. 19-1241, 2nd Cir.).
FORT WORTH, Texas — There is no reference to “claw back” payments in a quota share reinsurance agreement, a Cayman Islands reinsurer tells a Texas federal court in its Oct. 16 reply brief in support of dismissing an insurance agent’s declaratory judgment action regarding potential future demands for the return of any premiums (Contractor Managing General Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Greenlight Reinsurance, Ltd., No. 20-996, N.D. Texas).
LOS ANGELES — The parent companies of a reinsurer say in their Oct. 16 reply brief that a California federal court should dismiss four insurers’ intentional interference and inducement of breach of contract case with regard to reinsurance billings because the insurers “conflate holding an ownership interest in a company with acting as an agent for that same company” (California Capital Insurance Company, et al. v. Enstar Holdings [US] LLC, et al., No. 20-7806, C.D. Calif.).
CHICAGO — Insureds on Oct. 14 voluntarily dismissed their appeal with the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals over whether an arbitration delegation clause in a reinsurance participation agreement (RPA) is enforceable under the Nebraska Uniform Arbitration Act (NUAA) and whether a lower court erred in dismissing their complaint against a reinsurer (Nandorf, Inc., et al. v. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company, Inc., No. 19-3090, 7th Cir.).
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.).