This dispute relates to two reinsurance contracts between Axa Versicherung (“Axa”) and three subsidiaries of American International Group (collectively, “AIG”). In 1996, Axa’s predecessor in interest, Albingia Verischerungs AG, agreed to participate in a reinsurance facility for AIG for a fourteen month period. Following that term, Algingia agreed to renew its participation for a thirteen month period commencing on December 1, 1997. Axa sought to rescind those contracts on the basis of fraud, alleging that AIG misrepresented or failed to disclose certain material facts in connection with the negotiation of those contracts. Specifically, Axa alleged that AIG misled Algingia concerning what sort of facility the contracts created, “facultative” or “facultative obligatory.” Both parties moved for summary judgment – Axa on the merits and AIG on a statute of limitations defense.
The Southern District of New York denied both motions in their entirety. With respect to AIG’s statute of limitations argument, the court recognized that Axa initiated this action after the six year statute of limitations expired, however, could not conclude that the case was time-barred because “the determination of when plaintiff reasonably could have discovered the alleged misrepresentations involves genuinely disputed issues of fact not appropriate for summary judgment.” The court concluded that those same disputed issues of fact rendered the case inappropriate for summary judgment on the merits. Axa Versicherung v. New Hampshire Ins. Co., Case No. 05-10180 (S.D.N.Y. July 23, 2007).