NEW YORK — To the extent that a New York bankruptcy court recognizes a foreign proceeding, creditors and parties in interest to a reinsurer’s bankruptcy proceeding ask in a July 16 motion that they be allowed to bring their claims against the debtor in their own proceedings and that those litigations not be subject to any stay (In re Beechwood Re, No. 19-11560, Chapter 15, S.D. N.Y. Bkcy.).
SAN DIEGO — A California federal magistrate judge on July 16 confirmed a settlement reached between a reinsurer and claims processor and its CEO over allegations that they assisted in fraudulently transferring assets belonging to an insolvent insurance agency to avoid paying a $3.2 million judgment (Odyssey Reinsurance Co. v. Richard Keith Nagby, et al., No. 16-3038, S.D. Calif.).
UTICA, N.Y. — A reinsurer argues in a July 15 reply brief that a New York federal judge should reconsider a decision on the issue of collateral estoppel because a recent decision in a similar case “marks a major new development in this case” and requires dismissal of an insurer’s breach of contract claim in a case over coverage for settlements of asbestos claims (Utica Mutual Insurance Co. v. Century Indemnity Co., No. 13-995, N.D. N.Y.).
SUFFOLK, Mass. — A Massachusetts justice on June 19 denied a motion to compel filed by reinsurers in an environmental contamination coverage dispute after determining that the reinsurers failed to prove that discovery regarding an insurer’s declaratory judgment action against an insured is relevant to whether coverage exists for a settlement between the insurer and the insured (Lamorak Insurance Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, No. 1884CV00200-BLS2, Mass. Super., Suffolk, 2019 Mass. Super. LEXIS 385).
OSLO, Norway — A Norwegian insurer sustained a $8.65 million loss in an arbitration dispute with its reinsurer over claims related to a 2017 fire in London, according to a July 10 filing.
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico — An insurer’s rehabilitator on July 8 asked a Puerto Rico federal judge to lift a stay of a dispute between the insurer and various of its reinsurers regarding losses from two hurricanes and then remand the case to the insurer’s rehabilitation proceeding (Integrand Assurance Co. v. Everest Reinsurance Co., et al., No. 19-01111, D. Puerto Rico).
CHICAGO — A reinsurer asks an Illinois federal court in a July 8 motion to award it attorney fees and costs because an insolvent insurer’s liquidator’s motion to vacate a $437,000 arbitration award has “no chance of success” (Catalina Holdings [Bermuda] Ltd. v. Jennifer Hammer, No. 18-5642, N.D. Ill.).
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico — An insolvent insurer’s stock owner, its president and vice president sued the Puerto Rico insurance commissioner and others on July 11 in a federal court in Puerto Rico, alleging that defendants engaged in a civil conspiracy to deprive them of their constitutional rights (Victor J. Salgado and Associates Inc., et al. v. Javier Rivera-Rios, et al., No. 19-01663, D. P.R.).
DETROIT — A Michigan federal judge on July 12 dismissed a second amended complaint in farmers’ putative class action against crop insurers and the federal agencies that reinsure crop insurers over allegations that the defendants are liable for loss of revenue protection in 2015 because the federal agencies failed to use the actual market price as the harvest price to provide revenue protection under a dry bean revenue endorsement (DBRE) (Gregory Ackerman, et al. v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, et al., No. 17-11779, E.D. Mich., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116080).
KANSAS CITY, Kan. — In a dispute over an alleged reinsurance scheme, a Kansas federal judge on July 12 ruled that an investor’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act claim involving the financial strength of an investment company is reverse-preempted under the McCarran-Ferguson Act and that a RICO theory alleging the fraudulent design of the annuity at issue fails to state a claim (Albert Ogles v. Security Benefit Life Insurance Co., et al., No. 18-02265, D. Kan., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116147).
NEW YORK — A New York bankruptcy judge on July 10 denied a liquidator’s application for provisional relief staying a decision not yet issued in a New York federal court on a motion seeking an order requiring a reinsurer to post $250 million in additional security (In re Beechwood Re, No. 19-11560, Chapter 15, S.D. N.Y. Bkcy., 2019 Bankr. LEXIS 2077).
NEW YORK — A New York federal judge on July 11 dismissed a reinsurer’s counterclaims seeking a declaration that a reinsurance agreement has been terminated and seeking rescission of that agreement and a return to the status quo pre-contract (AmTrust North America Inc. v. Signify Insurance Ltd., et al., No 18-3779, S.D. N.Y., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115576).
NEW YORK — In a runoff insurer’s case over allegations of misuse of $320 million by affiliates of a failed Ponzi scheme, a New York federal judge on July 8 denied reconsideration of his ruling denying summary judgment to the affiliates on their counterclaim for advancement of expenses (In re: Platinum-Beechwood Litigation; Senior Health Insurance Company of Pennsylvania v. Beechwood Re Ltd., et al., No. 18-6658, David Levy v. Senior Health Insurance Company of Pennsylvania, No. 19-3211, and B Asset Manager L.P., et al. v. Senior Health Insurance Company of Pennsylvania, No. 19-4487, S.D. N.Y., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112742).
NEW YORK — New York and Indiana security statutes apply to a reinsurer despite pending liquidation proceedings, a New York federal judge held July 10; however, the judge denied a motion to enforce the statutes because an arbitration panel must decide first whether insurers are barred from bringing the motion (In re Platinum-Beechwood litigation, No. 18-06658; Melanie L. Cyganowski, et al. v. Beechwood Re Ltd., et al., Washington National Insurance Co., et al. v. Beechwood Re Ltd., et al., No. 18-12018, S.D. N.Y., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114645).
UTICA, N.Y. — In response to a reinsurer’s request to renew a motion for reconsideration on allocation and collateral estoppel issues in light of a recent decision in a similar case, an insurer in a July 9 opposition calls that motion “frivolous and another reminder of the wasteful and vexatious way” the reinsurer has litigated the New York federal court case over coverage for settlements of asbestos claims (Utica Mutual Insurance Co. v. Century Indemnity Co., No. 13-995, N.D. N.Y.).
PHOENIX — In a July 3 complaint filed in an Arizona federal court, plaintiffs allege that defendants “mass-produced a flawed insurance product that exacerbated their clients’ tax burdens” when the product should have “alleviated” those tax burdens while also providing insurance benefits (Benyamin Avrahami, et al. v. Celia Clark, et al., No. 19-04631, D. Ariz.).
BOSTON — A former employee of a Bermuda reinsurance investment company and an affiliated company notified a Massachusetts federal court on July 2 that she was voluntarily dismissing her lawsuit accusing her former employers of refusing to make incentive payments of $7.45 million allegedly owed to her upon her termination of employment without cause (Alissa Fredricks v. Markel CATCo Investment Management Ltd., et al., No. 19-10331, D. Mass.).
OMAHA, Neb. — In a breach of contract case over a workers’ compensation program, insureds argue in a July 2 brief that a Nebraska federal court should not dismiss counterclaims asserted under California law against a reinsurer and its affiliates because a choice-of-law provision found in a reinsurance participation agreement (RPA) is void (Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company Inc. v. Ramesh Pitamber & Kusum Pitamber, et al., No. 17-61, D. Neb.).
COLUMBIA, S.C. — An insurer’s claims over a bank’s alleged breach of duties as trustee of a reinsurance trust for an insolvent insurer are subject to the jurisdiction of the insurer’s liquidation proceeding, a South Carolina federal judge ruled July 3, granting the bank’s motion to exclude testimony and evidence related to punitive damages (Accident Insurance Company Inc. v. U.S. Bank National Association, et al., No. 16-2621, D. S.C., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111371).
SAN DIEGO — In a fraudulent transfer case over a $3.2 million judgment, a California federal judge on July 2 granted summary judgment to a reinsurer on its Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA) claims brought under a theory of constructive fraud against its shareholders, finding no genuine issue of fact as to whether there was a transfer of the assets (Odyssey Reinsurance Co. v. Richard Keith Nagby, et al., No. 16-3038, S.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111794).