A District Court confirmed an arbitration award in a non-reinsurance context in Lebeau v. Oppenheimer & Co., rejecting contentions that the award should be vacated because, inter alia, the arbitrators did not allow sufficient discovery, did not adequately disclose conflicts and demonstrated bias. One interesting finding is that under the Federal Arbitration Act, one may waive such objections by raising them for the first time in the context of motions to confirm or vacate a later award, rather than raising them in the arbitration, at the time of the alleged misconduct. Lebeau v. Oppenheimer & Co., Case No. 05-5876 (USDC E.D. Pa. June 23, 2006).
Arbitration / Court Decisions
Reinsurance offset dispute must be arbitrated
In Aegis Security Insurance Co. v. Harco National Insurance Company, 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.”
UK Court finds lack of authority for reinsurance agreement
The UK Commercial Court has held that a reinsurer is not bound by a contract signed by an agent, supposedly on its behalf, due to the lack of authority to do so, rejecting contentions that the agent had ostensible authority to do so, or that the reinsurer had ratified the contract. ING Re (UK) Limited v. R & V Versicherung AG, [2006] EWHC 1544 (Commercial Court June 29, 2006).
Hartford and Equitas reach settlement
Hartford Financial Services Group announced that it had reached an agreement with Equitas, Ltd. to resolve long-pending disputes regarding Hartford's ceded and assumed domestic reinsurance exposures with Equitas. Terms of the agreement were not disclosed.
Choice of law for reinsurance of commercial general and professional liability insurance
When a dispute arose over reinsurance for commercial general and professional liability insurance, and the reinsurance agreements were silent as to choice of law, a United States District Court has held that the choice of law provisions of the law of the forum state of the court control choice of law issues. ERC v. Laurier, case no. 03-1650, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida (June 16, 2006).