A court granted in part and denied in part a motion for judgment on the pleadings in a case involving claims by a reinsurer of automobile insurance policies (Lincoln General) against its cedent (U.S. Auto) and the cedent’s affiliates for allegedly intentionally miscalculating amounts owed under certain agreements between Lincoln General and U.S. Auto. Lincoln General argued that it had been underpaid, and was owed millions of dollars from U.S. Auto, and that the affiliates were also liable for U.S. Auto’s actions under various theories of direct and vicarious liability. The court denied that part of the defendants’ motion arguing that Lincoln General failed to set forth facts forming the basis of a viable veil-piercing claim; Lincoln General’s complaint adequately pled an alter ego theory. The court also allowed a tortious interference with contract claim to proceed against some of the defendants. However, the court granted that part of the motion arguing that non-signatories to the guaranty agreements between Lincoln General and U.S. Auto could not be held liable as guarantors, and that Lincoln General’s unjust enrichment claim failed as to those defendants who had written agreements with Lincoln General. Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co. v. U.S. Auto Ins. Servs., Inc., Case No. 07-1985 (USDC N.D. Tex. Apr. 29, 2009).
This post written by Brian Perryman.