Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

NINTH CIRCUIT: DISTRICT COURTS HAVE REMOVAL JURISDICTION OVER CASES RELATED TO CONVENTION ON FOREIGN ARBITRAL AWARDS

by

In a recent opinion, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on the novel question of whether a district court had removal jurisdiction under 9 U.S.C. § 205 where a defendant raises an affirmative defense relating to an arbitral award falling under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. The case arose from a dispute over medical licensing rights between entities from the British Virgin Islands, Israel, and California. After an arbitration decision finding that Infuturia Global had a valid license to develop, market, and use certain medical techniques, a California federal district court lifted an existing litigation stay on a related state court action. Infuturia moved to remand, arguing that removal was improper under 9 U.S.C. § 205 because defendants were not party to the foreign arbitration agreement. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling, holding that because an arbitration agreement or award falling under the Convention “relates to” an action’s subject matter if it could conceivably affect the action’s outcome, a district court does indeed have jurisdiction. Infuturia Global Ltd. v. Sequus Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 09-16378 (9th Cir. Feb. 7, 2011).

This post written by John Black.

ARBITRATION TERMINATING RETROCESSIONAL INSURANCE RULED INADMISSIBLE IN RELATED SUIT AGAINST REINSURANCE BROKER

by

On April 21, 2009, we reported on a case in which reinsurance broker Aon Re prevailed at trial against reinsurer Reliastar Life. Reliastar claimed Aon failed to disclose the potential termination of the reinsurance pool’s retrocessional insurance by its retrocessionaires. An appellate court has now affirmed the judgment for Aon. The appellate court rejected Reliastar’s arguments for reversal, including the argument that the trial court erred by excluding the arbitration decision that ultimately terminated the pool’s retrocessional insurance. The arbitration decision was irrelevant and inadmissible hearsay because Aon was not a party to the arbitration. The court further reasoned that only the timing of when the retrocessionaires considered their agreement ineffective, and not the fact that an arbitration eventually terminated the agreement, was relevant to Reliastar’s claim. The arbitration decision could have mislead the jury by imputing “guilt by association” to Aon for the retrocessional insurance’s termination. Reliastar Life Insurance Co. v. Roger Smith & Aon Re, Inc., Case No. A-4484-08T2 (N.J. App. Div. Mar. 1, 2011).

This post written by Michael Wolgin.

FLORIDA APPROVES TWO MORE BERMUDA-BASED REINSURERS FOR REDUCED COLLATERAL PROGRAM

by

The Florida Office of Insurance Regulation has approved two more Bermuda-based reinsurers for its collateral reduction program. Consent Orders have been entered approving Allied World Assurance Company, Ltd. and Tokio Millennium Re Ltd. The OIR also issued press releases announcing the agreements with Allied World and Tokio Millennium. Nine reinsurers have now been approved for this program.

This post written by Rollie Goss.

JAPAN CATASTROPHE REINSURANCE IMPLICATIONS

by

While the human toll of the still unfolding catastrophe in Japan rightfully is on the minds of many, there undoubtedly also will be an insurance toll as a result of this disaster. Those who have a professional interest in these events may find the Bermuda-based ARTEMIS alternative risk transfer/cat bond blog to be of interest. ARTEMIS has been posting daily updates on the potential insurance impact of this disaster.

This post written by Rollie Goss.