In a terse one sentence ruling, a District Court has denied a motion to dismiss a Complaint alleging a number of claims with respect to a Commutation Agreement of certain reinsurance agreements. The Defendant contended that the Commutation Agreement unambiguously released it from all liabilities, while the Plaintiff countered that the Defendant's reliance on extrinsic evidence in its motion demonstrated that the agreements were not unambiguous, requiring the denial of the motion to dismiss. ACE Tempest Reinsurance, Ltd. v. Converium Reinsurance (North America), Inc., Case No. 06-1059 (USDC S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2006).
A truck leased from Ryder TRS was involved in an accident, and Frontier Insurance Company provided coverage for the truck. After Frontier was declared insolvent, a party to the accident pursued claims under the policy against Clarendon Insurance Company, which had provided reinsurance to Frontier. The New Hampshire Supreme Court upheld an interpretation of the insurance policy proposed by Clarendon, which limited Clarendon's liability. This opinion discusses some of the general principles of policy interpretation. Warner v. Clarendon Ins. Co., Case No. 2005-415 (N.H. Nov. 2, 2006).
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.,  EWHC 1887 (Comm.) (April 10, 2006).
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).