• 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 denies motion to dismiss claims against auditors

September 18, 2006 by Carlton Fields

A Court has denied a motion to dismiss claims alleging that KPMG Bermuda had failed to perform adequate audits of Annuity & Life Re (Holdings), Ltd. since the company had failed properly to account for certain retrocessional insurance. Schnall v. Annuity & Life Re, Case No. 02-2133 (D. CT. Aug. 30, 2006). The Court had previously dismissed similar claims asserted against KPMG US, since the audits were performed by KPMG Bermuda.

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

UK – settlement agreement does not impair reinsurance

September 15, 2006 by Carlton Fields

A UK Chancery Court has held that by entering into collateral settlement agreements relating to asbestos-related personal injury claims, a party did not violate provisions of various reinsurance agreements. Curzon Insurance Limited v. Centre Reinsurance International Company, [2005] EWHC 2991 (Ch) (December 21, 2005). The Court stated that the rights of the reinsurers under the reinsurance agreements were not impaired by the settlements.

Filed Under: Contract Interpretation, UK Court Opinions

Arbitration panel not required to give prior arbitration award preclusive effect

September 14, 2006 by Carlton Fields

The Connecticut Supreme Court, following one of its own 1999 decisions, has held that an arbitration panel is not required to give preclusive collateral estoppel effect to a prior arbitration award, even where the prior award involved the interpretation of the same provision of a contract between the same parties. LaSalla v. Doctor's Associates, Inc., SC 17483 (Conn. June 13, 2006). The Court held that the desire to maintain the flexibility of the arbitral process was more important than the desire to promote the stability and finality of judgments in this context, noting in dicta that a specific provision in the contract to the contrary might have led to a different result.

Filed Under: Arbitration Process Issues, Week's Best Posts

US allowed to interevene in broker liability case to contest disclosure of audit report

September 14, 2006 by Carlton Fields

A US Magistrate Judge has granted the United States permission to intervene in an MDL broker liability case to contest the disclosure of a report which it contends contains statements of potential Government witnesses in a pending criminal case, where the statements would not be subject to disclosure in the criminal action. In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1663 (D.N.J. July 12, 2006). The Government sought a stay of the disclosure until the conclusion of the criminal matter, which had been brought by indictment. The Court required in camera submissions prior to making a decision on the request for a stay of discovery of the report.

Filed Under: Brokers / Underwriters

NASD arbitration award by default confirmed

September 13, 2006 by Carlton Fields

A US District Court has confirmed an arbitration award entered in an NASD arbitration in unusual circumstances: Petitioner failed to present any evidence in an attempt to force a postponement of the final hearing. The Panel denied the request for a postponement, at which time counsel for Petitioner left the hearing. The Panel reconvened the next day to permit Petitioner to offer evidence, which it failed to do. The Panel later dismissed the claims for lack of evidence. The Court found that Petitioner's failure to proceed was not misconduct by the Panel. Kober v. Kelly, Case No. 06-3341 (USDC S.D.N.Y. July 18, 2006).

Filed Under: Confirmation / Vacation of Arbitration Awards

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 457
  • Page 458
  • Page 459
  • Page 460
  • Page 461
  • 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.