A California Court of Appeals, reversing a lower court's decision, has held that the state court could exercise personal jurisdiction over Sedgwick Group Ltd., an English insurance broker which had provided brokerage services for a California excess and surplus lines insurance broker for at least 50 years. The Court found that Sedgwick had “enjoyed decades of profit as a result of purposeful and deliberate business practices aimed at California residents.” In finding the exercise of personal jurisdiction over Sedgwick proper, the Court cited, as being of particular relevance, a Ninth Circuit case that dealt with personal jurisdiction over a London-based insurance broker. Harris Rutsky & Co. Ins. Serv., Inc. v. Bell & Clements, 328 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2003). Swett & Crawford v. Sedgwick Group Ltd., Case No. B183940 (Cal.Ct.App. Oct. 11, 2006).
Jurisdiction Issues
Court denies motion for dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction
A United States Magistrate Judge has recommended the denial of a motion to dismiss filed by a California reinsurer of the obligations of a New York reinsured under a bond quota share reinsurance agreement. Sirius America Insurance Co. v. SCPIE Indemnity Co., Case no. 05-7923 (S.D. N.Y. Sept. 3, 2006). The Court relied heavily on the fact that payments under the reinsurance agreement would only benefit the New York reinsured.
Court dismisses case against Equitas entities for lack of jurisdiction
A US District Court, which had twice before denied motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction filed by Equitas Holdings Limited, Equitas Reinsurance Limited and Equitas Limited, has granted a motion to dismiss on the same ground filed by the same entities in a third case seeking arbitration of issues arising out of the denial of reinsurance claims. Employers Insurance Company of Wausau v. Equitas Holdings Limited, Case no. 06-291 (W.D. Wisc. Sept. 12, 2006). The Court found that the factual record before it in the prior cases had not been fully developed, and that it was joining the majority of courts that had ruled on this issue.
Court dismisses case against Equitas for lack of jurisdiction
A US District Court, which had twice before denied motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction filed by Equitas Holdings Limited, Equitas Reinsurance Limited and Equitas Limited, has granted a motion to dismiss filed by the same entities in a third case seeking arbitration of issues arising out of the denial of reinsurance claims. Employers Insurance Company of Wausau v. Equitas Holdings Limited, Case no. 06-291 (W.D. Wisc. Sept. 12, 2006). The Court found that the factual record before it in the prior cases had not been fully developed, and that it was joining the majority of courts that had ruled on this issue.
District Court retains action by receiver on reinsurance agreement
A District Court has denied a motion by the Oklahoma Commissioner, as receiver of Hospital Casualty Company, to remand or abstain from proceeding with a claim filed by the receiver against a reinsurer on a reinsurance agreement with Hospital Casualty. The Court declined to apply the Burford abstention doctrine, finding that although the case had a financial effect on the liquidation, the issues were not so intertwined with issues of agency authority or state regulatory policy that their resolution in federal court would imperil the regulatory scheme. Holland v. Employers Reinsurance Corp., Case No. 06-0426 (W.D. Ok. Aug. 29, 2006).