• 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 Special Focus

Special Focus

SPECIAL FOCUS: THE MANIFEST DISREGARD OF LAW DOCTRINE: WHAT DOES THE FUTURE HOLD?

April 28, 2008 by Carlton Fields

With this post we are expanding the content of Reinsurance Focus to include an occasional article of greater length containing a more detailed analysis of a reinsurance or arbitration-related topic of interest. These posts will be placed in the Special Focus category of our blog, and will consist of a short executive summary of the article linked to the article. We hope that this somewhat more detailed exploration of selected topics adds to our readers’ enjoyment of our blog. Our current intention is to have one such Special Focus post about every other month. Following is the executive summary of our first such article.

The manifest disregard of law doctrine has been referred to as a “judicially created” basis for vacating arbitration awards, which arguably is not expressly provided for in the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). In the recent Hall Street Associates opinion (see the March 28, 2008 post), the United States Supreme Court stated that the grounds for vacating arbitration awards set forth in the FAA are the exclusive grounds for vacating an arbitration award, which may imply that what some courts have described as judicially created bases for vacation, such as the manifest disregard of law doctrine, are not viable. In the accompanying article, we briefly explore the current status of the manifest disregard of law doctrine and whether it has a future after Hall Street Associates. Read the article.

This post written by Rollie Goss.

Filed Under: Confirmation / Vacation of Arbitration Awards, Special Focus, Week's Best Posts

SPECIAL FOCUS: Captive wars – PART TWO

May 31, 2007 by Carlton Fields

Other states are taking less substantial steps, only changing the regulatory requirements for their captives. The Vermont Insurance Department adopted a new captive regulation, effective April 1, 2007, which changes the reporting requirements for Vermont-domiciled captives that reinsure life insurance policies. Meanwhile, the Utah Department of Insurance has amendments to its captive rules under consideration, which would mainly address reporting and fee requirements. The New York Insurance Department has a separate web site area touting the advantages and benefits of a New York-domiciled captive.

Filed Under: Reinsurance Regulation, Special Focus, Week's Best Posts

SPECIAL FOCUS: Captive wars – PART ONE

May 30, 2007 by Carlton Fields

This week we present a two-part posting on changes regarding captive insurer regulation. The competition is on among the states for hosting captives. The competition consists of simpler regulation and lower capital requirements. On May 10, the Governor of Montana was presented with a new captive bill for signature which reduces capital requirements for protected cell captives 50%, from $1 million to $500,000, with a captial requirement of $250,000 for protected cell captives with 10 or fewer homogenous cells. The capital requirement for captives that reinsure admitted insurers issuing policies is also to be reduced by 50%. Other regulatory simplification is included in the bill. An article about this bill appears in the May 21 issue of Business Insurance. Meanwhile, the Arizona Governor recently signed a new bill which lowers the capital requirements for Arizona-domiciled protected cell captive insurers from $1 million to $500,000, and makes many changes to simplify regulation and reduce the burdens of regulation. A summary of the Arizona bill is also available.

Filed Under: Reinsurance Regulation, Special Focus, Week's Best Posts

Non-legislative reinsurance market developments

March 26, 2007 by Carlton Fields

Apart from legislative activity in the area of cat funds and cat risk reinsurance, there have been three recent items of interest with respect to alternative reinsurance arrangements:

  • Hanover Re, which has been very active in securitizing reinsurance risks, has securitized reinsurance recoverables valued at approximately $1 billion, to accelerate the cash flow in that area;
  • The World Bank has created a regional catastrophe risk insurance pool that is currently covering 18 Caribbean countries. Two press releases describe the pool and the initial funding for the pool, which will purchase reinsurance in the private market. A detailed report available at the World Bank's Internet site provides additional detail;
  • Guy Carpenter & Company and MMC Securities Corp. has issued a detailed report titled The Catastrophe Bond Market at Year-End 2006, providing an annual review of the catastrophe bond market and an update on bond transaction activity and market dynamics. It provides interesting descriptions of different kinds of alternative risk transfer mechanisms, such as catastrohe bonds, side cars, and extreme mortality transactions, with listings of transactions in each category.

Filed Under: Alternative Risk Transfers, Special Focus, Week's Best Posts

Special Focus: captive insurer bills

January 29, 2007 by Carlton Fields

With January comes the new sessions of most state legislatures. We have been reviewing the new bills filed in the state legislatures relating to reinsurance. There is one clear trend: many state legislators wish to provide for the creation and regulation of captive insurance/reinsurance companies in their states, or to amend existing rules relating to captives. While it is, of course, impossible to predict how many of the filed bills will be enacted into law, here is a sampling of the captive bills filed so far:

  • Arizona: HB 2294 (adding new provisions relating to captives);
  • Connecticut: Bill 58 (formation and licensing of captives) and Bill 60 (establishing a captive insurance division within the Insurance Department) (the full text of these bills is not available as of this posting);
  • Hawaii: HB 272 (allowing captives to be formed as limited liability companies, specifying minimum capital and surplus requirements and increasing investment flexibility);
  • Indiana: HB 1417 (specifying the requirements for a captive to do business in Indiana, imposing fees and premium taxes and establishing a captive insurer trust fund);
  • Missouri: SB 215 (amending the existing statutes to add 25 new sections relating to the regulation of captives – bill summary);
  • Montana: SB 161 (broad revision of statutory regulation of captives);
  • Nebraska: LB 121 (Captives Insurers Act);
  • New Jersey: SB 1444 (broad regulation of captives); and
  • West Virginia: SB 93 (adding three new sections relating to captives).

Filed Under: Reinsurance Regulation, Special Focus, Week's Best Posts

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 9
  • Page 10
  • Page 11
  • Page 12
  • Page 13
  • 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.