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).
Cross motions for summary judgment were denied in , Case No. 1:03-cv-216 (D. Vt. March 28, 2006), where the Court found that two reinsurance agreements covering professional liability policies were ambiguous as to whether the reinsurance provided an aggregate annual, or a per-policy, limit on the liability of the reinsurer. This case settled and was dismissed in June 2006. Professional Consultants Insurance Company v. Employers Reinsurance Company, 2006 WL 751244 (D. Vt. March 8, 2006) (slip opinion).
In , Case No. 06-0606 (USDC M.D. Pa. June 22, 2006), there was a dispute as to whether one party to two reinsurance agreements could offset an amount under one treaty against a liability owed under the other treaty. The reinsurance agreements contained an offset provision. The District Court compelled arbitration, holding that the dispute involved the interpretation of the offset provision, bringing the dispute within the arbitration provision, which required the arbitration of “any dispute arising out of the interpretation, performance or breach of this Agreement.”