• 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

Court finds pleading insufficiencies in Insurance Brokerage Antitrust litigation

October 16, 2006 by Carlton Fields

In the massive MDL proceeding relating to alleged bid rigging and kickbacks in the insurance brokerage area, the Court has ruled on a motion to dismiss, holding as follows: (1) the McCarran-Ferguson Act exemption does not apply: (2) the antitrust claims are inadequately pled; (3) the RICO claims are inadequately pled; (4) the ERISA claims state a cause of action (although the Court found the facts to be sparse); and (5) the Court reserved ruling as to state law claims, until it decided which federal claims survived motion practice. The Court directed the plaintiffs to file more particular statements as to the antitrust and RICO claims, instead of requiring a further amended pleading. In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation, Case No. MDL 1663 (D. N.J. Oct. 3, 2006).

Filed Under: Brokers / Underwriters, Week's Best Posts

UK Court affirms avoidance of insurance based upon nondisclosure of fraud allegations

October 12, 2006 by Carlton Fields

The UK Court of Appeal has upheld the avoidance of insurance on a vessel based upon the failure to disclose, during the placement of the insurance, that third parties had made allegations of fraudulent conduct by the prospective insured. North Star Shipping Ltd. v. Sphere Drake Insurance, [2006] EWCA Civ 378 (April 7, 2006). Even though the allegations turned out to be lacking in merit, the Court found that they would have been material to an underwriter considering the placement of the insurance.

Filed Under: Reinsurance Avoidance, UK Court Opinions

State court rules that Liquidation Act does not force payment of IBNR claims or avoid arbitration agreements

October 11, 2006 by Carlton Fields

A New Jersey Appellate Court has agreed with arguments made by the Reinsurance Association of America, holding that a court could not, under the authority of New Jersey's Insurer Liquidation Act, adopt a plan that forced reinsurers to pay claims based upon IBNR estimates, and could not abrogate arbitration provisions contained in reinsurance agreements to force that disputes be litigated in the liquidation court. In re Liquidation of Integrity Insurance Company, Case No., C-7022-86, 2006 WL 2795343 (N.J. Super. A.D. Oct. 2, 2006).

Filed Under: Arbitration Process Issues, Reinsurance Claims, Reorganization and Liquidation, Week's Best Posts

California Insurance Code amended with respect to reinsurance matters

October 8, 2006 by Carlton Fields

California has adopted amendments to its insurance code making changes regarding credit for reinsurance, insolvency of a ceding company, assets or deductions for reinsurance and foreign ceding insurers, and requirements with respect to the examination of reinsurance intermediaries. The new statute also requires that reinsurance intermediaries respond to subpoenas issued by arbitration panels. California Assembly Bill No. 2400, effective January1, 2007.

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

Court denies motion for dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction

October 5, 2006 by Carlton Fields

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.

Filed Under: Jurisdiction Issues

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 540
  • Page 541
  • Page 542
  • Page 543
  • Page 544
  • 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.