Source: https://www.lexislegalnews.com/mealeys-reinsurance
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 14:24:09+00:00

Document:
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In their March 8 reply brief, reinsurers raise failure to state a claim and timeliness as reasons that a District of Columbia federal judge should dismiss or arbitrate a financial service company’s amended complaint concerning their breach of an implied-in-fact contract dispute over a $26 million arbitration award (Vantage Commodities Financial Services I, LLC v. Assured Risk Transfer PCC, LCC, et al., No. 17-01451, D. D.C.).
COMMENTARY: So What Is An Arbitration “Reasoned Award” Anyway?
LEXINGTON, Ky. — A Kentucky federal judge on April 15 ordered a hearing to address a joint motion to continue a jury trial in the U.S. government’s case against a farmer accusing him of fraudulently submitting statements to a government agency that reinsures his crops (United States v. Keith Foley, No. 18-cr-00154, E.D. Ky.).
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico — In its surreply, an insurer asks in an April 12 surreply that a Puerto Rico federal judge reject a reinsurer’s motion to dismiss or compel arbitration of the insurer’s lawsuit regarding hurricane losses, citing its potential rehabilitation proceedings (Integrand Assurance Co. v. Everest Reinsurance Co., et al., No. 19-01111, D. Puerto Rico).
TAMPA, Fla. — In separate April 11 reply briefs in a breach of contract dispute in Florida federal court, a Florida self-insured intergovernmental risk management association argues that a reinsurer “cherry picked” legal statements from cited cases while the reinsurer says the self-insured association’s coverage standard is “disingenuous and incorrect” (Public Risk Management of Florida v. Munich Reinsurance America Inc., No. 18-1449, M.D. Fla.).
COLUMBIA, S.C. — A South Carolina federal judge on April 11 denied a bank’s motion for partial summary judgment seeking an imposed cap on damages in a dispute over the bank’s alleged breach of duties 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., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62308).
NEW YORK — A New York federal judge on April 11 issued reasons for a “bottom-line” order dismissing a first amended complaint’s claims for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting fraud filed by two hedge funds’ liquidators (Martin Trott, et al. v. Platinum Management [NY] LLC, et al., No. 18-10936, S.D. N.Y., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62745).
CONCORD, N.H. — Reinsurers on April 9 asked a New Hampshire federal court to dismiss or stay insurers’ breach of contract case over $22 million in outstanding reinsurance billings because a lawsuit pending in a New Jersey state court can resolve all rights and obligations (United States Fire Insurance Co., et al. v. Equitas Insurance Ltd., et al., No. 18-01205, D. N.H.).
HARRISBURG, Pa. — A reinsurer notified a Pennsylvania federal judge on April 9 of its intent to appeal an order compelling it and an insurer to arbitrate their reinsurance coverage dispute over lead paint losses arising in the Maryland area (Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Co. v. Everest Reinsurance Co., No. 18-mc-653 c/w No. 18-mc-656, M.D. Pa.).
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A California federal judge was given a joint status report on April 8 by parties offering positions on a renewed motion for class certification in consolidated cases over a reinsurance participation agreement (RPA) entered into by California businesses when they bought a workers’ compensation program (Shasta Linen Supply Inc. v. Applied Underwriters Inc., et al., No. 16-158, Pet Food Express Ltd., et al. v. Applied Underwriters Inc., et al., No. 16-1211, E.D. Calif.).
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. — Following the submission of post-trial briefs to an Illinois federal court, an insurance fund and a railroad company in April 8 response briefs further debate the issues of alter-ego and de facto merger with regard to payment for mine subsidence damages in their reinsurance coverage dispute (Illinois Mine Subsidence Insurance Fund v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., No. 17-3199, C.D. Ill.).
LEXINGTON, Ky. — A Kentucky federal judge on April 5 accepted a settlement agreement over real property between the U.S. government and the wife of a farmer being accused of making false statements for federally reinsured crops (United States v. Ronnie Jolly, No. 18-cr-32, E.D. Ky.).
SEATTLE — In a breach of contract case between an association of Washington public entities and a reinsurer regarding settlement of a lawsuit over police officers’ alleged excessive force, a Washington federal judge on March 11 scheduled a jury trial for June 2020 (Washington Cities Insurance Authority v. Ironshore Indemnity Inc., No. 19-00054, W.D. Wash.).
LINCOLN, Neb. — In a workers’ compensation insurer’s dispute over a promissory note executed pursuant to a reinsurance participation agreement (RPA), a Nebraska federal magistrate judge on April 2 ordered that trial on a class action counterclaim is to commence next March (Applied Underwriters Inc. v. Top’s Personnel Inc., No. 15-90, D. Neb.).
NEW YORK — In a first amended complaint filed April 1 in a New York federal court, a receiver for funds seeks redress “for the innocent investors and creditors of her estate” damaged by unlawful and tortious acts with regard to a “massive fraudulent scheme masterminded by the now indicted and/or convicted insiders” of Platinum Partners Credit Opportunities Master Fund LP (PPCO funds) (Melanie L. Cyganowski, as equity receiver for Platinum Partners Credit Opportunities Master Fund LP, et al. v. Beechwood Re Ltd., et al., No. 18-12018, S.D. N.Y.).
HARTFORD, Conn. — In a dispute over reinsurance billings for asbestos losses, a Connecticut judge on Feb. 13 directed a reinsurer to appoint a single arbitrator in response to an insurer’s demand and to proceed with forming a panel (Employers Insurance Co. of Wausau v. The Hartford, No. HHDCV186099158S, Conn. Super., Hartford Dist., 2019 Conn. Super. LEXIS 354).
TRENTON, N.J. — An insurance and reinsurance broker argues in its March 29 reply brief to a New Jersey federal court that the filed-rate doctrine bars homeowners’ claims in a case concerning allegations of violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act based on a lender-placed insurance (LPI) scheme involving kickbacks, including reinsurance premiums (Edward Leo v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC of Delaware, et al., No. 17-05839, D. N.J.).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.