• 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 QUASHES CRIMINAL SUBPOENAS ISSUED TO INSURANCE COMPANIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS

October 25, 2007 by Carlton Fields

Last year, a federal grand jury in New Haven indicted four former senior executives of General Re Corporation and one former senior executive of AIG for their participation in a fraudulent scheme to manipulate AIG’s financial statements. Recently, three of the defendants issued multiple subpoenas to several insurance companies and their attorneys pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(c). The subpoenas were contested by both the government and the third party subpoena recipients.

Applying the legal standard set forth by the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Nixon, the district court concluded that the subpoenas were unenforceable because they sought materials outside the proper scope of Rule 17(c). Specifically, the materials sought by several of the subpoenas would only be useful as impeachment materials, and therefore failed Nixon’s admissibility requirement. Other subpoenas were to be found unenforceable because they failed Nixon’s relevancy requirement. United States of America v. Ferguson, Case No. 3:06cr137, (USDC D. Ct. Sept. 26, 2007).

Filed Under: Accounting for Reinsurance, Criminal Actions

SENATE COMMITTEE PASSES TRIA EXTENSION

October 24, 2007 by Carlton Fields

The Senate Banking Committee has approved an extension of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act. Principal differences between the Senate Committee's version and the version approved by the full House are:

  • duration: the House version provides for a 15 year extension, the Senate Committee version 7 years;
  • coverage trigger level: the House version reduces the threshold for triggering coverage from $100 million to $50 million, while the Senate Committee version maintains the $100 million trigger level;
  • coverage: the House version adds credit life insurance and nuclear, biological, chemical and radiological attacks, while the Senate Committee version does not broaden the scope of coverage.

A copy of the Senate Committee's version is not yet available on the Thomas legislative site.

Filed Under: Reinsurance Regulation, Week's Best Posts

REN RE REACHES PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF SHAREHOLDER CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT

October 23, 2007 by Carlton Fields

Renaissance Re has reached a proposed settlement of a shareholder class action lawsuit arising out of alleged finite reinsurance transactions. The proposed settlement would result in a cash fund of $13.5 million against which claimants could submit claims. Class counsel filed a memorandum in support of preliminary approval of the proposed settlement and a supplemental memorandum. The court then entered a preliminary approval order, setting a fairness hearing for consideration of final approval of the proposed settlement on January 11, 2008. This proposed settlement is in addition to Ren Re's $15 million settlement with the SEC reported on in a February 16, 2007 post to this blog.

Filed Under: Accounting for Reinsurance

NEW YORK INSURANCE DEPARTMENT PROPOSES NEW REGULATION ON REINSURANCE COLLATERAL

October 22, 2007 by Carlton Fields

The New York Insurance Department has proposed a new regulation that moves from collateral-based security for reinsurance agreements to “principles-based” regulation based in large part on the financial rating of reinsurers, regardless of their domicile. A press release from the department provides a good summary of the reasons behind the change, as well as a summary of the new regulation, and touts the revised regulation as a substantial accomplishment, seemingly portraying it as an accomplished fact. A redlined version of the proposed regulation was also released, which will be published for comment. The target date for the effectiveness of the new regulation is July 1, 2008.

Filed Under: Reinsurance Regulation, Week's Best Posts

ILLINOIS COURT GRANTS SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO INSURANCE COMMISSIONER, AS STATUTORY LIQUIDATOR, ON RESCISSION AND SETOFF AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

October 18, 2007 by Carlton Fields

We have reported previously on developments in Legion Insurance’s liquidation proceeding (see January 16, 2007 and April 26, 2007 posts), including an attempt to recover premiums allegedly owed by American Patriot Insurance Agency, Inc. (“American Patriot”) relating to a workers’ compensation program under a limited agency agreement.

On September 7, an Illinois federal court granted the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment on American Patriot’s affirmative defenses for setoff and rescission. The court concluded that American Patriot had waived their right to rescind the limited agency agreement where they failed to take any steps towards rescinding the agreement until three years after they acquired knowledge of the fraud, coupled with Defendants’ continued retention of the benefits of the contract. With respect to American Patriot’s setoff defense, the liquidator contended that the alleged debts could not be mutual because they were not due and owing between the same parties or based upon the same contracts, and that mutuality of capacity was lacking because the premium owed by American Patriot were held in a fiduciary capacity. The judge agreed, stating that “the debts asserted by Defendants lack a mutuality of time with the debts asserted against them by the Liquidator, and Defendants’ claim for setoff must be dismissed on these grounds.”

The court denied summary judgment to the liquidator on American Patriot’s remaining affirmative defenses of unclean hands, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, estoppel of a 2000 program year and breach of contract. Ario v. American Patriot Ins. Agency, Case No. 05 C 1049 (N.D.Ill. September 7, 2007).

Filed Under: Contract Interpretation, Reinsurance Avoidance, Reorganization and Liquidation

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 402
  • Page 403
  • Page 404
  • Page 405
  • Page 406
  • 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.