• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

  • About
    • Events
  • Articles
    • Treaty Tips
    • Special Focus
    • Market
  • Contact
  • Exclusive Content
    • Blog Staff Picks
    • Cat Risks
    • Regulatory Modernization
    • Webinars
  • Subscribe
You are here: Home / Archives for Carlton Fields

Carlton Fields

DISTRICT COURT FINDS COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY EXCEPTION TO FOREIGN SOVEREIGN IMMUNITIES ACT NOT APPLICABLE TO ALLEGED REINSURANCE SCHEME

February 28, 2008 by Carlton Fields

In a June 7, 2007 post, we reported on a decision of the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit which affirmed the dismissal of claims alleging that an Indonesia state-owned social security insurer operated a reinsurance scam. The district court dismissed the claims after finding that the alleged activity was covered by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, and the “commercial activity” exception to immunity did not apply. The Court of Appeals affirmed, but remanded the case for reconsideration of whether a negligent supervision claim was covered by the “commercial activity” exception. On remand, the district court has found that the negligent supervision claim does not come within the bounds of the “commercial activity” exception to immunity, and is therefore barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. The district court accordingly dismissed the remaining claim. Anglo-Iberia Underwriting Management Co. v. Lodderhose, Case No. 9700084 (USDC S.D. N.Y. Jan. 22, 2008).

This post written by Rollie Goss.

Filed Under: Jurisdiction Issues

UK COMMERCIAL COURT DENIES LIBYAN INSURER’S CLAIMS AGAINST LONDON BROKER

February 27, 2008 by Carlton Fields

In 2004, Aon (a London broker) placed reinsurance for risks that United Insurance Company (a Libyan insurance company) assumed in insuring assets of a Libyan state-owned oil company. Aon also obtained reinsurance for United in relation to a Libyan company in the chemicals industry. Aon placed the business in the London market. After renewing the business in 2005, United brought three claims against Aon. United sought to recover brokerage fees paid to Aon on the basis that Aon misrepresented the nature of cover, commissions, and fees. United was unsuccessful on all of its claims. The Commercial Court found that United’s evidence did not match the relevant contemporary documents and was contradicted by Aon’s evidence. United Insurance Co of Libya v. Aon Ltd., [2007] EWHC 1583 (Comm. July 5, 2007). This opinion is not on the UK Court site, but is available on WESTLAW at 2007 WL 1942745.

This post written by Lynn Hawkins.

Filed Under: Brokers / Underwriters, UK Court Opinions

COURT FINDS ARBITRATION CLAIMS BARRED BY PRIOR CLASS SETTLEMENT

February 26, 2008 by Carlton Fields

Plaintiffs allegedly suffered losses relating to stock options in WorldCom stock. They filed an NASD arbitration asserting claims, and were members of a class certified with respect to WorldCom stock losses. The class action settled and the proposed settlement received final approval one month before the arbitration hearing. The Claimants in the arbitration were members of the settlement class and had not excluded themselves from the class. The settlement's final approval Order included a fairly typical release of claims and an injunction against class members maintaining or participating in legal proceedings seeking to pursue claims that were released by the settlement. The arbitration proceeded, and Claimants recovered an award, at least part of which was for losses released by the class settlement. Both the District Court and the Court of Appeals found that the award should be vacated to the extent that it awarded damages for claims that had been released by the class settlement. Rich v. Spartis, No. 06-1723 (USCA 2d Cir. Feb. 8, 2008).

This post written by Rollie Goss.

Filed Under: Confirmation / Vacation of Arbitration Awards, Week's Best Posts

IRS WITHDRAWS PROPOSED MODIFICAITON OF CAPTIVE TAX BENEFIT

February 25, 2008 by Carlton Fields

In a November 5, 2007 post, we commented upon action of the IRS in proposing a regulation which would eliminate certain tax benefits for captive insurance and reinsurance companies. Following heavy lobbying from politicians, including governors and Senators from states with active captive insurer programs, and heavy lobbying from the captive industry, the IRS has withdrawn the proposed regulation and cancelled the upcoming hearing on the proposal. This action has been viewed in the trade press as being a substantial victory for captive insurers.

This post written by Rollie Goss.

Filed Under: Accounting for Reinsurance, Reinsurance Regulation, Week's Best Posts

LONDON MARKET RESEARCH TOOL

February 25, 2008 by Carlton Fields

A subscription-only reporting service on the London reinsurance market cases is available at Lloyd’s Law Reports: insurance and reinsurance, with commentaries on cases by Ian Hunter (QC) and Professor Robert Merkin.  This company also sells a reinsurance treatise titled Reinsurance Practice and the Law.

This post written by Rollie Goss.

Filed Under: UK Court Opinions

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 388
  • Page 389
  • Page 390
  • Page 391
  • Page 392
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 488
  • Go to Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Carlton Fields Logo

A blog focused on reinsurance and arbitration law and practice by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Focused Topics

Hot Topics

Read the results of Artemis’ latest survey of reinsurance market professionals concerning the state of the market and their intentions for 2019.

Recent Updates

Market (1/27/2019)
Articles (1/2/2019)

See our advanced search tips.

Subscribe

If you would like to receive updates to Reinsurance Focus® by email, visit our Subscription page.
© 2008–2025 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · Disclaimers and Conditions of Use

Reinsurance Focus® is a registered service mark of Carlton Fields. All Rights Reserved.

Please send comments and questions to the Reinsurance Focus Administrators

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.