• 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

Modified follow the fortunes provision not apply to settlements by reinsured

November 1, 2006 by Carlton Fields

A UK Court has held that a follow the fortunes provision in facultative reinsurance contracts did not apply to without prejudice settlements reached by a reinsured with its insureds, since the clause provided that the reinsurance would “follow in all respects the settlements or other payments of whatsoever nature excluding without prejudice and ex-gratia settlements.” The clear contractual exclusion of without prejudice settlements from the operation of the follow the fortunes clause meant that the reinsured had to prove that the claims payments were appropriate under the underlying insurance. Faraday Capital Ltd. v. Copenhagen Reinsurance Co., [2006] EWHC 1474, [2006] All ER D 74, 2006 WL 2667603 (Queen's Bench Comm. Ct. May 4, 2006).

Filed Under: Reinsurance Claims, UK Court Opinions, Week's Best Posts

Liability limit in excess policy applies to following form reinsurance certificate

October 30, 2006 by Carlton Fields

The Second Circuit has found that an aggregate liability limit in excess insurance policies applied to facultative reinsurance certificates which contained a “follow the form” clause. The parties had a dispute as to how the aggregate limit should be interpreted for purposes of the reinsurance. The Court affirmed a District Court Order ruling that the clear definition of the aggregate limit in the underlying policy controlled, as a matter of contract interpretation. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. v. ACE American Reinsurance Co., Case No. 05-6189 (2nd Cir. Oct. 18, 2006).

Filed Under: Contract Interpretation, Week's Best Posts

Claims against interpleaded policy limits not subject to arbitration provision

October 25, 2006 by Carlton Fields

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has held that the arbitration provision in two fiduciary liability insurance policies issued to Enron Corporation did not apply to require arbitration of competing claims asserted by multiple insureds to the limits of two policies that were interpleaded by the insurers. Tittle v. Enron Corp., Case No. 05-20380 (5th Cir. Sept. 1, 2006).

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

NAIC collateral proposal proceeds towards a vote

October 23, 2006 by Carlton Fields

The NAIC's Reinsurance Task Force is proceeding towards an anticipated final vote in early 2007 on a proposal to change the indirect regulation of non-admitted reinsurers, which currently allows U.S. reinsureds to take statutory credit on their balance sheet for reinsurance only if such reinsurance obligations are 100% collateralized. The Task Force's web page contains the current red-lined version of the U.S. Reinsurance Collateral White Paper and Rating Proposal: an alternative procedure to grant credit for ceded reinsurance.

Filed Under: Reinsurance Regulation, Week's Best Posts

UK Court permits substitution of party in arbitration and expanded damage request

October 17, 2006 by Carlton Fields

The UK Commercial Court has approved an arbitrator's decision to permit the substitution of one Claimant for another to reflect what in effect was a corporate reorganization. It also permitted the Claimant to use a pending arbitration to seek an award of all balances that would come due under the treaty during the pendency of the arbitration, instead of requiring a filing of separate arbitrations for amounts that became due after the commencement of the pending arbitration. Harper Versicherungs AG v. Indemnity Marine Assurance Co., [2006] EWHC 1500 (QB) (June 23, 2006).

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

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 262
  • Page 263
  • Page 264
  • Page 265
  • Page 266
  • 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.