In a non-reinsurance securities arbitration, the United State Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has held that although courts “do not hesitate to vacate an award when an arbitrator is not selected according to the contract-specified method …” any departure from the terms of the parties' agreement in this case was trivial, not warranting vacatur of the arbitration award. Bulko v Morgan Stanley, 1006 WL 1460022, case no. 05-10242 (5th Cir. May 30, 2006).
Denial of motion to vacate arbitration award due to choice of law affirmed
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held in a non-reinsurance case that a District Court correctly denied a motion to vacate an arbitration award on the basis that the arbitration panel “manifestly disregarded the law” by applying Washington law, rather than Arizona law, because the decision was not “completely irrational” and did not constitute a manifest disregard of the law. Parsons v. Polen, 2006 WL 1082820, case no. 04-35654 (9th Cir. Apr. 25, 2006) (opinion not available on Court's web site).
Terrorism Risk Insurance Act: Industry Implications and the Uncertain Future
Mallory Straka, Journal of Reinsurance, vol. 13, no. 2, at 51 (Spring 2006).
The Errors and Omissions Clause: The Duct Tape of Reinsurance?
David Newkirk, Journal of Reinsurance, vol. 13, no. 2, at 27 (Spring 2006).
Lloyds: A Decade of Evolution after 300 Years
Sean McDermott, Journal of Reinsurance, vol. 13, no. 2, at 15 (Spring 2006).