Week's Best Posts

A MESSAGE TO OUR READERS

November 5, 2009 by Carlton Fields

We recently experienced a hardware problem and a problem with our e-mail subscription service that resulted in an interruption of our e-mail update service to our subscribers. We have resolved the problem, and are moving to a different e-mail service to ensure greater reliability. When we make the move to the new service, our existing subscribers may receive a Welcome e-mail asking you to re-confirm your subscription. Please do so. Please go to Reinsurance Focus to see the content that was not forwarded to you druing this interruption in the e-mail service. We apologize for this interruption.

We are also in the final stages of upgrading our blog generally, which will feature an easier to use navigation system. The upgrade also will permit us to offer selected additional content only to those who subscribe to our e-mail updates. The initial offering will be a short free webinar on the proposals to “modernize” the regulation of the reinsurance industry coming from both the NAIC and the Obama Administration. If you are not a current subscriber, and are interested in receiving such content, please subscribe to our blog below. Existing subscribers need not do so to receive notification of such additional content.

To sign up for e-mail updates of all blog posts, enter your e-mail address here:

To sign up for e-mail updates of only the WEEK'S BEST posts, enter your e-mail address here:

This post written by Rollie Goss.

SUIT AGAINST LLOYD’S DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION BECAUSE ONE OF THE NAMES SHARED CITIZENSHIP WITH PLAINTIFFS

November 3, 2009 by Carlton Fields

A federal district court granted the motion of certain underwriters at Lloyd’s of London to dismiss the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that when determining the diversity of citizenship of the parties in a case involving Lloyd’s, all the “names” must be taken into consideration. When federal jurisdiction is founded on 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the parties must be diverse in their citizenship, so that each defendant is a citizen of a state different from each plaintiff. In this case, the plaintiffs, citizens of Louisiana, claimed that an insurance policy with Lloyd’s covered property damaged in Hurricane Katrina. Lloyd’s presented the court with an unsworn declaration that one of the names on the policy also was a citizen of Louisiana. Rejecting plaintiffs’ technical arguments about the unsworn nature of the declaration, the court dismissed the case because the diversity requirement was not met. St. Charles Property Association v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, Case No. 09-2504 (USDC E.D. La. Oct. 2, 2009).

This post written by Brian Perryman.

SPECIAL FOCUS: THIRD CIRCUIT TELENOR DECISION REGARDING THE PRECLUSIVE EFFECT OF A COLLUSIVE FOREIGN COURT JUDGMENT AND THE NECESSITY FOR A TRIAL TO DETERMINE THE ARBITRABILITY OF A DISPUTE

November 2, 2009 by Carlton Fields

On October 26, 2009 we posted a brief item on Telenor Mobile Communications AS v. Altimo Holdings & Investments Limited, 07-4974 (2d Cir. Oct. 8, 2009), in which the Third Circuit held that: (1) the district court did not err in not holding a trial to determine whether a dispute before it was arbitrable based upon a dispute as to whether the person who signed the contract containing an arbitration provision had apparent authority to sign the document on behalf of a corporate party, when the factual record clearly demonstrated that the signer had apparent authority to do so; and (2) the district court did not act in manifest disregard of law by confirming an arbitration award that failed to give preclusive effect to a collusive judgment of a Ukrainian court adjudicating an issue before the arbitration panel. Blogmaster Rollie Goss submits a more detailed SPECIAL FOCUS post on this interesting case.

This post written by Rollie Goss.

FEDERAL COURT REFUSES TO ENJOIN LATER STATE COURT CLAIMS RELATING TO PREVIOUSLY LITIGATED REINSURANCE TREATIES

October 27, 2009 by Carlton Fields

A federal court in Texas denied Aon Re’s motion for preliminary injunction against the defendant TIG Insurance Company. Aon Re moved to enjoin TIG from bringing claims arising out of two reinsurance treaties entered into in the late 1990’s that had been the subject of prior litigation, also in federal court in Texas, and which was resolved on summary judgment in Aon Re’s favor on statute of limitation grounds in 2005. However, TIG subsequently brought claims against Aon Re, based at least in part on issues pertaining to the two treaties, in federal court in Texas, which it withdrew, and then re-filed in state court in California.

Aon Re sought an injunction from the Texas federal court to enjoin TIG from prosecuting any further claims arising from the treaties, as it contended those issues had all been resolved. TIG cited the Anti-Injunction Act, which generally disfavors a federal court’s injunction preventing a state court from exercising its jurisdiction. Aon Re cited the “relitigation” exception to the Anti-Injunction Act, but the Court held that Aon Re failed to demonstrate, under the more strict standards required to obtain injunctive relief, that the prior judgment rendered based on statute of limitations grounds was a judgment “on the merits,” entitling it to the preclusive effect. The court essentially left it to the state court in California to decide for itself whether Aon Re was entitled to preclusion, based on the prior judgment in its favor. Aon RE, Inc. v. TIG Ins. Co., No. 3:09-cv-0300-B (USDC N.D. Tex. Sept. 28, 2009).

This post written by John Pitblado.

COURT OF APPEAL ADDRESSES PRECLUSIVE EFFECT OF COLLUSIVE FOREIGN COURT JUDGMENT AND PROCESS FOR DETERMINING ARBITRABILITY OF DISPUTE

October 26, 2009 by Carlton Fields

It is not unusual for there to be parallel or serial legal proceedings in arbitration disputes, and the preclusive effect of the first matter to go to a final decision has resulted in a number of opinions addressing the application of the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel in arbitration proceedings. In Telnor Mobile Communications AS v. Altimo Holdings & Investments Limited, 07-4974 (2d Cir. Oct. 8, 2009), the Court held that: (1) the district court did not err in not holding a trial to determine whether a dispute before it was arbitrable based upon a dispute as to whether the person who signed the contract containing an arbitration provision had apparent authority to sign the document on behalf of a corporate party, when the factual record clearly demonstrated that the signer had apparent authority to do so; and (2) the district court did not act in manifest disregard of law by confirming an arbitration award that failed to give preclusive effect to a collusive judgment of a Ukrainian court adjudicating an issue before the arbitration panel.

This post written by Rollie Goss.