• 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 / Arbitration / Court Decisions / Reinsurance Claims / JURY AWARDS STONEBRIDGE CASUALTY $5.8 MILLION ON REINSURANCE CLAIM

JURY AWARDS STONEBRIDGE CASUALTY $5.8 MILLION ON REINSURANCE CLAIM

June 5, 2014 by Carlton Fields

A final judgment was recently entered on a jury verdict awarding $5.8 million to Stonebridge Casualty Insurance Company. The case involved a reinsurer’s failure to pay reinsurance claims arising out of an automobile tire loyalty rewards program insured by Stonebridge. The reinsurer was a motor club that had entered into a contractual arrangement with certain Lloyd’s syndicates under which the motor club agreed to be financially responsible for reinsurance claims.

Under the insured program, automobile dealerships offered their customers a reward certificate entitling the customer to two free sets of tires if they returned to the dealership for all of the manufacturer’s recommended service. Stonebridge insured the program and obtained reinsurance coverage in the event that claims exceeded $46 per certificate. After the reinsurance threshold was exceeded and Stonebridge filed reinsurance claims, the motor club and Lloyd’s contended that the tire claims were invalid and sued Stonebridge for a declaration that they were not liable. Stonebridge counterclaimed, and after seven days of trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Stonebridge, awarding the full amount of damages sought in the amount of $5.8 million. Stonebridge has also filed a motion seeking additional prejudgment interest of $813,226. Stonebridge Casualty Ins. Co. v. Nation Motor Club, Inc., Case No. 9:10 cv 81157 KLR (USDC S.D. Fla. Mar. 24, 2014).

This post written by Michael Wolgin.

See our disclaimer.

Share
Share on Google Plus
Share
Share on Facebook
Share
Share this
Share
Share on LinkedIn

Filed Under: Reinsurance Claims

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.