SYRACUSE, N.Y. - A federal judge in New York on Jan. 13 denied a reinsurer's challenge to a magistrate judge's ruling, finding that the magistrate judge's finding that a certain document was privileged was not clearly erroneous (Utica Mutual Insurance Company v. Munich Reinsurance America, Inc., No. 12-cv-00196, and Munich Reinsurance America, Inc., v. Utica Mutual Insurance Company, No. 13-cv-00743, N.D. N.Y.).
NEW YORK - A federal judge in New York, who was ordered by the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to provide more detailed findings on the intended loss of an insurance fraud scheme that involved the redistribution of drugs originally provided to HIV and AIDS patients, on Jan. 17 affirmed his earlier decision that the scheme resulted in $2.9 million in losses to Medicare, finding that a ledger found at the man's apartment detailed the prices and quantities of the drugs (United States of America v. Bladimir Rigo, No. 13 CR 897, S.D. N.Y.; 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6228).
NEW YORK - A New York federal judge on Jan. 17 refused to vacate a $1,305,131 arbitral award issued in favor of a maker of solar panels, finding that the award was not ambiguous and that the tribunal did not act in bad faith (Trina Solar US, Inc. v. JRC Services LLC, et al., No. 16-CV-2869, S.D. N.Y.; 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6134).
NEW YORK - The United States on Jan. 14 filed suit against a cigar manufacturer in New York federal court, alleging that the company failed to make payments after a civil fine was imposed against it under a law that was created to transition the tobacco industry to a free market (United States of America v. La Casa Grande Tobacco Corporation, No. 17-CV-225, S.D. N.Y.).
NEW YORK - A New York federal judge on Jan. 12 denied preliminary approval of a $290,000 wage-and-hour settlement, finding that the parties failed to provide an evaluation of the range of reasonable recoveries (Sean Patterson, et al. v. Premier Construction Co. Inc., et al., No. 15-662, E.D. N.Y.; 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4845).
NEW YORK - Lead plaintiffs in a securities class action lawsuit against a Chinese online retailer and others have failed to plead any actionable misrepresentations or omissions in support of their claim that the defendants concealed their intention to shut down the company's beauty supply marketplace in violation of federal securities laws, a federal judge in New York ruled Jan. 10 in granting the defendants' motion to dismiss certain claims (In re Jumei International Holding Limited Securities Litigation, No. 14-9826, S.D. N.Y.; 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3206).
NEW YORK - A power company's specification that contractors use asbestos and its ability to prevent the related injuries allow it to be held liable under New York Labor Law Section 200, a divided New York appellate court held Jan. 10 (Phyllis Brown, et al. v. A.O. Smith Water Products, et al., No. 190415/12, 206, 205, N.Y. Sup., App. Div., 1st Dept.; 2017 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 98).
NEW YORK - Experts in an asbestos case may make qualitative evaluations regarding exposure and need not precisely identify the quantity of exposure, a New York justice held in a Jan. 9 opinion denying defendants' wide-ranging motion (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation, Geraldine Andrews, et al. v. A.O. Smith Water Products, et al., No. 190034/15, N.Y. Sup., New York Co.; 2017 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 12).
CENTRAL ISLIP, N.Y. - A defendant's motion to dismiss, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), allegations that he infringed the "Canon" trademark was rejected Jan. 11 by a New York federal judge (Canon-U.S.A. Inc. v. F&E Trading, LLC, et al., No. 15-6015, E.D. N.Y.; 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4223).
NEW YORK - A New York federal judge on Jan. 10 refused to compel arbitration before the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) International Court of Arbitration of a dispute over the purchase of a rail-signaling business, finding that the terms of the agreement require that the case be determined by an independent accounting firm (IAF) (Alstom, et al. v. General Electric Company, No. 16-CV-3568, S.D. N.Y.; 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3188).
ALBANY, N.Y. - The New York Court of Appeals on Jan. 10 certified a question from the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals regarding reinsurance liability cap limits as they relate to per-occurrence loss and expense (Global Reinsurance of America v. Century Indemnity Company, No. 34, N.Y. App.).
NEW YORK - A group of London-based reinsurers told a federal court in New York on Jan. 9 that they do not oppose a reinsured's motion to confirm an asbestos related arbitration award (OneBeacon Insurance Company v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London, No. 16-cv-09908, S.D. N.Y.).
SAN FRANCISCO - An insurer told a federal court in New York on Jan. 6 that the issue of whether a workers' compensation claim dispute can be arbitrated and what parties should participate in the arbitration is up to the court and not up to a panel of arbitrators to decide (In the Matter of the Arbitration Between National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA v. Federal Insurance Company, No. 16-cv-08821, S.D. N.Y.).
NEW YORK - A New York appellate panel on Jan. 3 affirmed the constitutionality of a ban on e-cigarettes or vaping devices in schools, restaurants and outdoor public spaces in New York City because the "one-subject rule" in the state's constitution does not apply to local laws (NYC CLASH v. City of New York, No. 152723/142014, N.Y. Sup., App. Div.; 1st Dept.; 2017 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 41).
SYRACUSE, N.Y. - A reinsurer told a federal court in New York on Dec. 30 that an insurer's request regarding testimony from its corporate designee is improper because among other reasons, the reinsurer says, it does not have the information the insurer seeks (Utica Mutual Insurance Company v. R&Q Reinsurance Company, No. 15-cv-00270, N.D. N.Y.).
NEW YORK - A New York appeals panel on Jan. 3 affirmed a lower court's ruling that an insurer has a duty to defend and indemnify an additional insured against an underlying personal injury lawsuit (Nova Casualty, et al. v Harleysville Worchester Insurance Co., et al., No. 2632, 116359/10, N.Y. Sup., App. Div.; 1st Dept.; 2017 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 39).