• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

  • About
    • Events
  • Articles
    • Treaty Tips
    • Special Focus
    • Market
  • Contact
  • Exclusive Content
    • Blog Staff Picks
    • Cat Risks
    • Regulatory Modernization
    • Webinars
  • Subscribe
You are here: Home / Archives for Arbitration / Court Decisions

Arbitration / Court Decisions

Former Fremont execs sued over alleged reinsurance fraud

November 17, 2006 by Carlton Fields

The California Insurance Commissioner, as conservator of Fremont Indemnity Company, has sued former executive officers and directors of Fremont in a civil fraud case, alleging that they caused Fremont over $200 million is loss due to fraudulent underwriting and reinsurance placement activities, which caused reinsurers to seek rescission of reinsurance, forcing Fremont to enter into commutation agreements with the reinsurers. Garamendi v. Rampino, Case No. BC357691 (Cal Super. Ct. Aug. 29, 2006). The Complaint alleges that the defendants inappropriately gave pricing discounts, wrote risks in high severity NCCI grades, wrote on a net line underwriting basis, and abused deductible and retrospective rating underwriting principles, in many respects contrary to express representations made to reinsurers.

Filed Under: Reinsurance Avoidance, Week's Best Posts

Arizona Court rejects collateral modification of an arbitration award

November 16, 2006 by Carlton Fields

Cundiff and State Farm arbitrated the amount of damage suffered by Cundiff as a result of an automobile accident while working. Neither party challenged the award or sought confirmation. The policy contained a provision allowing State Farm to offset benefits received from worker's compensation from any policy claim. Cundiff sued State Farm, contending that she was entitled to recover the full amount of her loss, without an offset for the workers' compensation benefits. The Court determined that the full amount of Cundiff's loss, at least implicitly including the offset issue, had been litigated in the arbitration, and that Cundiff's failure to follow Arizona law to seek modification of the arbitration award barred her action, justifying summary judgment in favor of State Farm. Cundiff v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., Case No. 2005-0209 (Az. Ct. App. Oct. 27, 2006).

Filed Under: Confirmation / Vacation of Arbitration Awards

Court bars run-off administrator from arbitration

November 14, 2006 by Carlton Fields

National Indemnity Company provided reinsurance to Seaton Insurance Company and Stonewall Insurance Company, both of which were in run-off. Castlewood, Inc. entered into an agreement with Seaton and Stonewall to provide administratrive services for the run-off of their business. When arbitrations commenced between NICO and Seaton and Stonewall on their reinsurance agreements, NICO sought to add Castlewood to the arbitrations, despite the lack of an arbitration agreement in Castlewood's agreements with Seaton and Stonewall. The Court granted Castlewood's request for a preliminary injunction preventing its addition to the arbitrations, subject to a $1 million injunction bond. Castlwood, Inc., v. National Indemnity Co., Case No. 06-6842 (USDC S. D. N.Y. Oct. 24, 2006). NICO sought to compel Castlewood to arbitrate based upon theories of assumption and estoppel, and because Castlewood's agreement provided that its administration of the run-off would not conflict with the reinsurance obligations of Seaton and Stonewall. The Court found this an insufficient basis to compel Castlewood's participation in arbitration.

Filed Under: Arbitration Process Issues, Week's Best Posts

Pennsylvania court rules on letter of credit posted by cedent

November 8, 2006 by Carlton Fields

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. Eastern Atlantic Ins. Co. v. Swiss Reinsurance America Corp., Case No. 04-1555 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 16, 2004).

Filed Under: Contract Interpretation, Reinsurance Claims

UK court rejects claims against reinsurance broker relating to film financing and production

November 7, 2006 by Carlton Fields

The UK Commercial Court has rejected a claim against a reinsurance broker which placed reinsurance for coverage of risks relating to the financing and production of motion pictures. When the reinsurers successfully contested claims, the reinsured sued the broker, alleging negligence in the placement of the reinsurance. The Court rejected the claims, holding that the reinsured had failed to prove, inter alia, that the loss for which it sought compensation had been caused by a breach of duty by the reinsurance broker. HIH Cas. and General Ins. Ltd. v. JLT Risk Solutions Ltd., [2006] EWHC 485 (Comm. Ct. Mar. 15, 2006).

Filed Under: Brokers / Underwriters

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 537
  • Page 538
  • Page 539
  • Page 540
  • Page 541
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 559
  • Go to Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Carlton Fields Logo

A blog focused on reinsurance and arbitration law and practice by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Focused Topics

Hot Topics

Read the results of Artemis’ latest survey of reinsurance market professionals concerning the state of the market and their intentions for 2019.

Recent Updates

Market (1/27/2019)
Articles (1/2/2019)

See our advanced search tips.

Subscribe

If you would like to receive updates to Reinsurance Focus® by email, visit our Subscription page.
© 2008–2025 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · Disclaimers and Conditions of Use

Reinsurance Focus® is a registered service mark of Carlton Fields. All Rights Reserved.

Please send comments and questions to the Reinsurance Focus Administrators

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.