• 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

Fourth Circuit vacates Order dismissing policy rescission claim

December 18, 2006 by Carlton Fields

The financial collapse of Reciprocal of America, an insurer and reinsurer, resulted in a number of lawsuits, including a series of lawsuits by policyholders and state Insurance Commissioners in Alabama and in other states against the company's officers and directors. When two officers pleaded guilty to criminal charges relating to the operation of the company, the company's D&O insurer filed a declaratory judgment action, seeking rescission of the policies it had issued. While the actions filed by the policyholders and Insurance Commissioners were granted MDL status, the MDL Panel declined to add the D&O insurer's action to that proceeding. The District Court dismissed the D&O insurer's action, on the basis that it would abstain from hearing the claims in deference to the parallel state court actions. The Fourth Circuit reversed, vacating the decision, finding that the requirements for abstention were not present, and that the rescission action should go forward. Great American Ins. Co. v. Gross, Case No. 05-2069 (4th Cir. Oct. 30, 2006).

Filed Under: Jurisdiction Issues, Reinsurance Avoidance

UK Court construes jurisdiction reference in reinsurance slip

December 15, 2006 by Carlton Fields

The UK Court of Appeals has interpreted a provision in a reinsurance slip that simply said “Jurisdiction Clause” as being essentially meaningless, evidencing an intention to agree upon a jurisdiction clause, where such an agreement was never reached. The Court considered extrinsic evidence, and declined to import a clause from underlying insurance that provided for jurisdiction in Mauritius. The effect of the decision was to permit the courts to apply UK law to the dispute. Dornoch Ltd. v. Mauritius Union Assur. Co., [2005] EWHC 1887 (Comm.) (April 10, 2006).

Filed Under: Contract Interpretation

Mississippi Supreme Court upholds assumption reinsurance agreement

December 14, 2006 by Carlton Fields

The Mississippi Supreme Court has affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of two insurance companies that entered into assumption reinsurance agreements to transfer workers' compensation risks to Legion Insurance. After Legion was placed in liquidation, the Mississippi Insurance Guaranty Association unsuccessfully attempted to hold the companies responsible for losses. The Court held that the agreements constituted a novation, removing the companies from the risk. Mississippi Ins. Guaranty Ass'n. v. MS Casualty Ins. Co., Case No. 2005-01158 (Oct. 26, 2006).

Filed Under: Reorganization and Liquidation

NAIC Reinsurance Task Force meeting summary

December 13, 2006 by Carlton Fields

The summary of the meetings of the NAIC's Reinsurance Task Force on December 9, 2006 and December 11, 2006 at the 2006 Winter Meeting has been posted on the NAIC's Internet site. It provides a brief description of the action taken on the proposed creation of the Reinsurance Evaluation Office to rate the financial strength of reinsurers as a basis for a collateral requirement, stating that the proposal should be “further refined” by the NAIC's Financial Condition (E) Committee no later than September 2007.

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

Court holds that policies covering WTC provided for replacement only

December 13, 2006 by Carlton Fields

A District Court has held that policies providing property coverage for the World Trade Center (“WTC”) complex , which provided “replacement cost” coverage, provided coverage limited to what it would cost to replace the covered buildings as they stood immediately prior to their destruction, and did not cover additional amounts to make the re-built WTC safe, modern and politically palatable. SR International Business Ins. Co. v. World Trade Center Properties LLC, Case No. 01-9291 (USDC SDNY Oct. 31, 2006).

Filed Under: Reinsurance Claims

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 443
  • Page 444
  • Page 445
  • Page 446
  • Page 447
  • 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.