• 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 Week's Best Posts

Week's Best Posts

ORDER ALLOWING DISCOVERY OF ARBITRATION AWARD’S VALIDITY LACKED FINALITY TO CONFER APPELLATE JURISDICTION

July 6, 2009 by Carlton Fields

In an unpublished opinion, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals declined to exercise jurisdiction over an appeal of an order allowing discovery in connection with a motion to vacate an arbitration award. The Federal Arbitration Act provides for appeals from orders “modifying, correcting, or vacating an [arbitration] award.” The trial court’s decision to permit discovery into whether the award should be vacated might be a prelude to a final order vacating or modifying the award, but it is not a final order for purposes of the Act. Guyden v. Prudential Life Ins. Co. of Am., No. 08-3108 (3d Cir. June 5, 2009).

This post written by Brian Perryman.

Filed Under: Arbitration / Court Decisions, Arbitration Process Issues, Discovery, Week's Best Posts

JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ARBITRATION ISSUE DENIED AGAIN ON RIPENESS GROUNDS

June 30, 2009 by Carlton Fields

On December 1, 2008, we reported on a Sixth Circuit remand with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on ripeness grounds, which the district court subsequently dismissed the action. Though in the underlying arbitration, the arbitration panel issued a “Partial Final Class Determination Award” denying the defendants’ motion for class certification. Then, after granting plaintiff’s motion to reopen the case, the plaintiff filed a motion to confirm the award, and defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Applying the Sixth Circuit’s analysis from the earlier action, the district court granted the motion to dismiss as the matter was not ripe for judicial review, determining that the plaintiff could not establish a suffering of harm or hardship and quoting the circuit court stating that courts “should remain reluctant to invite a judicial proceeding every time the arbitrator sneezes.” Dealer Computer Servs., Inc. v. Dub Herring Ford Lincoln Mercury, Inc., Case No. 017-10263 (USDC D.N.J. May 29, 2009).

This post written by Dan Crisp.

Filed Under: Arbitration Process Issues, Week's Best Posts

SPECIAL FOCUS: NAIC'S REINSURANCE REGULATORY MODERNIZATION ACT

June 29, 2009 by Carlton Fields

The NAIC's Reinsurance Regulatory Modernization Act was supposed to be the solution for the problems surrounding the regulation of reinsurance and the role of collateral in reinsurance transactions. SPECIAL FOCUS Editor John Pitblado describes the critical comments received to the exposure draft of the proposed federal legislation, the consitutional issues involved and the current status of this initiative, in Constitutional Concerns with the Reinsurance Regulatory Modernization Act.

This post written by John Pitblado.

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

SPECIAL FOCUS: NAIC’S REINSURANCE REGULATORY MODERNIZATION ACT

June 29, 2009 by Carlton Fields

The NAIC's Reinsurance Regulatory Modernization Act was supposed to be the solution for the problems surrounding the regulation of reinsurance and the role of collateral in reinsurance transactions. SPECIAL FOCUS Editor John Pitblado describes the critical comments received to the exposure draft of the proposed federal legislation, the consitutional issues involved and the current status of this initiative, in Constitutional Concerns with the Reinsurance Regulatory Modernization Act.

This post written by John Pitblado.

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

THE IMPLICATIONS OF FEDERAL REGULATORY CHANGES FOR THE REINSURANCE INDUSTRY

June 23, 2009 by Carlton Fields

On June 17,2009, the Administration published its proposals for the regulation of the financial services industry. Reinsurance Focus presents its analysis of these proposals as they may affect the reinsurance industry. The prior day, the U.S. House Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance and Government Enterprises held a hearing on the regulation of systemic risk in the economy, which is one of the principal focuses of the Administration's proposals. Franklin Nutter, President of the Reinsurance Association of America, testified at that hearing, and a written copy of his testimony is provided here to add background to the potential reinsurance implications of the regulation of systemic risk. Other written testimonies from the hearing are available on the Subcommittee's web site. There is also a link on that page to a video webcast version of the hearing.

This post written by Rollie Goss.

Filed Under: Reinsurance Regulation, Week's Best Posts

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 200
  • Page 201
  • Page 202
  • Page 203
  • Page 204
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 269
  • 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.