The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has affirmed a summary judgment in favor of the Society of Lloyd's, enforcing an English judgment against a Lloyd's Name who refused to sign on with and pay reinsurance premium to Equitas. Society of Lloyd's v. Siemon-Netto, Case no. 04-7214 (D.C. Cir. August 8, 2006). At oral argument, the Names made it clear that “the underlying basis of their defense is their belief that the English courts have a 'bias and prejudice in favor of Lloyd's under circumstances which make it impossible for a Name to win.'” Under the Uniform Foreign Money Judgments Recognition Act, a foreign judgment may not be enforced if it was “rendered under a system that does not provide impartial tribunals or procedures compatible with the requirements of due process of law.” The Names did not go so far as to seek the application of this principle, but the Court noted that if they had attempted to do so, they would have failed. The only evidence of “bias and prejudice” was that other Names who had advanced the same position as Appellants had lost their cases, and the mere fact that they had lost did not establish improper partiality. Indeed, the Court noted that “the fact that Names have lost similar (albeit not identical) cases in eight United States Courts of Appeals … would require us to reach the same conclusion regarding American courts.” With that closing statement, the Court affirmed the District Court's ruling. Carlton Fields represented the Society of Lloyd's in this case.
Reinsurance Transactions
Court of Appeal affirms summary judgment in favor of Lloyd’s against Name
The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has affirmed a summary judgment in favor of the Society of Lloyd's, enforcing an English judgment against a Lloyd's Name who refused to sign on with and pay reinsurance premium to Equitas. Society of Lloyd's v. Siemon-Netto, Case no. 04-7214 (D.C. Cir. August 8, 2006). At oral argument, the Names made it clear that “the underlying basis of their defense is their belief that the English courts have a 'bias and prejudice in favor of Lloyd's under circumstances which make it impossible for a Name to win.'” Under the Uniform Foreign Money Judgments Recognition Act, a foreign judgment may not be enforced if it was “rendered under a system that does not provide impartial tribunals or procedures compatible with the requirements of due process of law.” The Names did not go so far as to seek the application of this principle, but the Court noted that if they had attempted to do so, they would have failed. The only evidence of “bias and prejudice” was that other Names who had advanced the same position as Appellants had lost their cases, and the mere fact that they had lost did not establish improper partiality. Indeed, the Court noted that “the fact that Names have lost similar (albeit not identical) cases in eight United States Courts of Appeals … would require us to reach the same conclusion regarding American courts.” With that closing statement, the Court affirmed the District Court's ruling. Carlton Fields represented the Society of Lloyd's in this case.
Names lose exchange rate issue with Lloyd's
In another of a series of cases involving Lloyd's enforcing UK judgments against Names for Equitas reinsurance premium, after losing on a summary judgment motion that enforced the UK judgment, a Name moved to set aside the judgment based upon an exchange rate provision. Finding the District Court did not err by applying the Utah Uniform Foreign-Money Claims Act, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the denial of the motion. Society of Lloyd's v. Bennett, Case No. 05-4069 (10th Cir. June 2, 2006). This appears to be one of those cases in which a party simply will not give up. Having lost in the English Courts and in the US District Court, while an appeal was pending to the Tenth Circuit, the Names sought to vacate or modify the District Court's Order by filing a Rule 60 motion. Even this case appears to be near an end.
Names lose exchange rate issue with Lloyd’s
In another of a series of cases involving Lloyd's enforcing UK judgments against Names for Equitas reinsurance premium, after losing on a summary judgment motion that enforced the UK judgment, a Name moved to set aside the judgment based upon an exchange rate provision. Finding the District Court did not err by applying the Utah Uniform Foreign-Money Claims Act, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the denial of the motion. Society of Lloyd's v. Bennett, Case No. 05-4069 (10th Cir. June 2, 2006). This appears to be one of those cases in which a party simply will not give up. Having lost in the English Courts and in the US District Court, while an appeal was pending to the Tenth Circuit, the Names sought to vacate or modify the District Court's Order by filing a Rule 60 motion. Even this case appears to be near an end.
Fourth Circuit upholds negotiated reserve allocation for long term care policies
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed a District Court decision granting summary judgment to a reinsurer, finding the negotiated contractual allocation of responsibility for complying the South Carolina's requirements for active life reserves for long term care policies was valid and enforceable, and not in violation of South Carolina law or public policy. Kanawha Insurance Corp. v. Employers Reinsurance Corp., Case No. 05-2206 (July 12, 2006).