• 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 / Reinsurance Claims

Reinsurance Claims

North Korea suspected of massive reinsurance fraud

December 5, 2006 by Carlton Fields

One of the more intriguing articles about reinsurance recently has been one which suggests that North Korea may be engaged in massive reinsurance claim fraud to generate hard currency for its ailing economy. All insurance in North Korea is written through one state-owned company, which reinsures the risks through Lloyds and non-Lloyds reinsurance companies. It is suspected that North Korea has been submitting bogus claims and claims with phony documentation, encompassing losses aggregating as much as $150 million. The closed nature of the society prevents reinsurers or claims agents from investigating the losses. This is interesting reading at Foxnews.com (until they archive the link).

Filed Under: Industry Background, Reinsurance Claims

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

Court applies follow the fortunes doctrine and rejects late notice claim

November 3, 2006 by Carlton Fields

In a summary judgment posture, a New York state court has rejected a reinsurer's late notice claim, finding that under New York law a reinsurer must prove prejudice due to late notice in order for late notice to constitute a defense to failure to pay claims. The Court found that no evidence of prejudice had been proffered. The Court then enforced a follow the fortunes clause as to the majority of the reinsurance claims at issue, finding that the reinsurer had not developed evidence in extensive discovery that the reinsured had acted fraudulently or in bad faith in paying the claims. The Court denied summary judgment as to claims relating to one underlying insured, based upon limited evidence that suggested possible bad faith in the payment of claims submitted by that party. Granite State Insur. Co. v. Ace American Reinsur. Co., Index No. 604347/04, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York (Aug. 4, 2006).

Filed Under: Reinsurance Claims

Modified follow the fortunes provision not apply to settlements by reinsured

November 1, 2006 by Carlton Fields

A UK Court has held that a follow the fortunes provision in facultative reinsurance contracts did not apply to without prejudice settlements reached by a reinsured with its insureds, since the clause provided that the reinsurance would “follow in all respects the settlements or other payments of whatsoever nature excluding without prejudice and ex-gratia settlements.” The clear contractual exclusion of without prejudice settlements from the operation of the follow the fortunes clause meant that the reinsured had to prove that the claims payments were appropriate under the underlying insurance. Faraday Capital Ltd. v. Copenhagen Reinsurance Co., [2006] EWHC 1474, [2006] All ER D 74, 2006 WL 2667603 (Queen's Bench Comm. Ct. May 4, 2006).

Filed Under: Reinsurance Claims, UK Court Opinions, Week's Best Posts

Court of Appeals affirms decision as to number of occurrences for World Trade Center coverage

October 24, 2006 by Carlton Fields

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has affirmed the District Court's decision with respect to coverage for the September 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center towers. The District Court held that the attack consituted a single occurrence with respect to some of the insurance, and two occurrences with respect to other insurance. SR International Business Insur. Co. v. World Trade Center Properties, LLC, Case No. 04-4500 (2nd Cir. Oct. 18, 2006).

Filed Under: Reinsurance Claims

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 87
  • Page 88
  • Page 89
  • Page 90
  • Page 91
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 93
  • 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.