• 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

Choice of law for reinsurance of commercial general and professional liability insurance

July 6, 2006 by Carlton Fields

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).

Filed Under: Reinsurance Claims

RICO claims against GenRe dismissed

July 5, 2006 by Carlton Fields

A United States District Judge dismissed RICO claims asserted against GenRe by the Insurance Commissioners of Tennessee and Virginia in an MDL action relating to the liquidation of Reciprocal of America and various risk retention groups, due to the failure to adequately plead reliance. In re Reciprocal of America Sales Practices Litigation, case no., MDL 04-1551 (June 12, 2006). The claims alleged that GenRe provided illusory reinsurance, under which it did not assume substantial risk.

Filed Under: Reinsurance Claims

Court of Appeals vacates summary judgment, finding reinsurance agreements ambiguous

June 20, 2006 by Carlton Fields

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated orders entered granting Republic Insurance Company summary judgment interpreting facultative reinsurance certificates, finding that the provisions regarding when definitive statement of loss were required to be submitted were ambiguous, requiring consideration of extrinsic evidence and resolution of the ambiguity by a trier of fact. Folksamerica Reinsurance Co. v. Republic Ins. Co., Case No. 04-2716 (May 26, 2006).

Filed Under: Reinsurance Claims

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 91
  • Page 92
  • Page 93

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.