A Justice of the Queen's Bench Division of the UK Commercial Court has interpreted a loss notification provision of a reinsurance agreement to permit the reinsured to recover under the agreement. The analysis used by the Court is similar in some respects to how courts in the United States interpret insurance policies. AIG Europe (Ireland) Limited v. Faraday Capital Limited,  EWHC 2707 (Comm) (Oct. 31, 2006).
A Pennsylvania court has ruled in a dispute over the sufficiency of a letter of credit posted by a cedent and draws on that instrument. The state court's opinion is available through Mealey's. Eastern Atlantic Ins. Co. v. Swiss Reinsurance America Corp., No. 2004 cv 5514 (Pa. Comm. Pls. Dauphin Co.). There had been a parallel action in federal court, in which the Court abstained to permit the state court to adjudicate the disputes. , Case No. 04-1555 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 16, 2004).
The Second Circuit has found that an aggregate liability limit in excess insurance policies applied to facultative reinsurance certificates which contained a “follow the form” clause. The parties had a dispute as to how the aggregate limit should be interpreted for purposes of the reinsurance. The Court affirmed a District Court Order ruling that the clear definition of the aggregate limit in the underlying policy controlled, as a matter of contract interpretation. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. v. ACE American Reinsurance Co., Case No. 05-6189 (2nd Cir. Oct. 18, 2006).
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. ,  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.
A broker was directed to procure a policy on a vessal for the benefit of two parties as co-insureds. It failed to have one party named as an insured. When a loss occurred and the claim of the unnamed party was denied, litigation unsued. The UK Court of Appeal held that losses of the unnamed party resulted from breach of duty by the broker, and that the unnamed party could not be considered to be a co-insured based upon its status as an undisclosed principal of the policy's beneficiary. ,  EWCA 889 (June 29, 2006).