• 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

COURT OF APPEALS HOLDS THAT ARBITRATION AGREEMENT DEADLINES TO BE STRICTLY ENFORCED

September 17, 2007 by Carlton Fields

The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has held that time deadlines in arbitration agreement must be strictly enforced, affirming a District Court decision previously reported on in this blog in December 11, 2006 and August 24, 2006 posts. The dispute arose out of the timing of appointing an arbitrator in an international arbitration.

The Seventh Circuit affirmed a district court’s ruling that when Argonaut, a California-based insurer, missed the deadline for appointing one of the arbitrators in an international arbitration, it lost its right to appoint an arbitrator. The arbitration agreement required that the parties make their appointments by a certain time. The appointment deadline fell on the Sunday of Labor Day weekend. When Argonaut did not appoint its arbitrator, Lloyd’s appointed an arbitrator for that position on the panel, giving it two party-appointed arbitrators. Argonaut argued that in light of the holiday, the notice it gave on the Tuesday after Labor Day was a “timely nomination” of the arbitrator. The court disagreed, holding that “[i]n the absence of a choice-of-law provision, we conclude that parties are to be bound to the explicit language of arbitration clauses, with no state-specific exceptions that would extend otherwise clear contractual deadlines.” Certain Underwriters at Lloyds v. Argonaut Ins. Co., No. 04 c 5852 (7th Cir. Aug. 29, 2007).

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

SOLVENCY II REGULATORY PROCESS COMMENCES IN THE EU

September 14, 2007 by Carlton Fields

Regulation of insurance and reinsurance in the European Union has moved from the solvency issue-based initial phase, dubbed Solvency I, to a broader phase, dubbed Solvency II. Solvency II will address concepts of capital requirements, risk management practices, supervisory activities, reporting and disclosures. Final implementation of Solvency II is scheduled between 2010 and 2012, and substantial study and regulatory and legislative activities will precede final implementation. Information about Solvency II may be found on the EU's web site.

Filed Under: Reinsurance Regulation

MEALEY'S REINSURANCE-RELATED CONFERENCES COMING UP

September 13, 2007 by Carlton Fields

There are two conferences during the next couple of months which might be of interest to those interested in reinsurance. The Association of Insurance & Reinsurance Run-off Companies, in conjunction with Cavell and Mealey's, is presenting a conference on October 15-17 in Rutherford, New Jersey titled Highlights of Selected Issues in a Runoff from a US/UK Perspective. A brochure for this event is available on-line. November 14-15 is the time for Mealey's Global Reinsurance Forum, being held in Bermuda.

Filed Under: Reinsurance Meetings

MEALEY’S REINSURANCE-RELATED CONFERENCES COMING UP

September 13, 2007 by Carlton Fields

There are two conferences during the next couple of months which might be of interest to those interested in reinsurance. The Association of Insurance & Reinsurance Run-off Companies, in conjunction with Cavell and Mealey's, is presenting a conference on October 15-17 in Rutherford, New Jersey titled Highlights of Selected Issues in a Runoff from a US/UK Perspective. A brochure for this event is available on-line. November 14-15 is the time for Mealey's Global Reinsurance Forum, being held in Bermuda.

Filed Under: Reinsurance Meetings

COURT ENFORCES LIMITATIONS ON DISCOVERY IN CONNECTION WITH RULE 60 MOTION

September 12, 2007 by Carlton Fields

This case presents an interesting arbitration process issue. In 2004, the parties to this action participated in an arbitration, resulting in a $10,000 award to defendant, Smith Barney. Subsequently, plaintiff filed an action to vacate, and defendant moved to confirm the award. In February, 2005 a California district court confirmed the arbitration award. Plaintiff then filed a motion under Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to vacate that order, and later filed a Renewed Rule 60 Motion. The renewed motion was filed on the grounds that defendant and its counsel had committed “fraud. . . misrepresentation or other misconduct” by making material misrepresentations to the court. Plaintiff also sought discovery under its motion on the basis of newly discovered case law and evidence. The court granted “limited’ discovery. Plaintiff proceeded to use the limited permission granted by the court to “bombard” Defendant with voluminous discovery. Concluding that the Plaintiff’s discovery requests were “inappropriate in breadth” and “went well beyond the limited subjects referred to in the court’s. . . [o]rder,” the Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel and granted Smith Barney’s motion for protective order. Sathianathan v. Smith Barney, Case No. C-04-02130 SBA (JCS) (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2007).

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

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 597
  • Page 598
  • Page 599
  • Page 600
  • Page 601
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 678
  • 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.