• 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

Survey on US run-off operations

June 4, 2007 by Carlton Fields

PriceWaterhouse Coopers has published an interesting report on a survey that it conducted relating to US run-off operations. The report covers various aspects of run-off operations and strategies. Especially combined with the recent Lloyd’s report on capitalization and operation of Lloyd’s run-off syndicates, which was the subject of a post on this blog on May 28, this makes interesting reading.

Filed Under: Accounting for Reinsurance, Reinsurance Claims, Reorganization and Liquidation, Reserves, Week's Best Posts

SPECIAL FOCUS: Captive wars – PART TWO

May 31, 2007 by Carlton Fields

Other states are taking less substantial steps, only changing the regulatory requirements for their captives. The Vermont Insurance Department adopted a new captive regulation, effective April 1, 2007, which changes the reporting requirements for Vermont-domiciled captives that reinsure life insurance policies. Meanwhile, the Utah Department of Insurance has amendments to its captive rules under consideration, which would mainly address reporting and fee requirements. The New York Insurance Department has a separate web site area touting the advantages and benefits of a New York-domiciled captive.

Filed Under: Reinsurance Regulation, Special Focus, Week's Best Posts

SPECIAL FOCUS: Captive wars – PART ONE

May 30, 2007 by Carlton Fields

This week we present a two-part posting on changes regarding captive insurer regulation. The competition is on among the states for hosting captives. The competition consists of simpler regulation and lower capital requirements. On May 10, the Governor of Montana was presented with a new captive bill for signature which reduces capital requirements for protected cell captives 50%, from $1 million to $500,000, with a captial requirement of $250,000 for protected cell captives with 10 or fewer homogenous cells. The capital requirement for captives that reinsure admitted insurers issuing policies is also to be reduced by 50%. Other regulatory simplification is included in the bill. An article about this bill appears in the May 21 issue of Business Insurance. Meanwhile, the Arizona Governor recently signed a new bill which lowers the capital requirements for Arizona-domiciled protected cell captive insurers from $1 million to $500,000, and makes many changes to simplify regulation and reduce the burdens of regulation. A summary of the Arizona bill is also available.

Filed Under: Reinsurance Regulation, Special Focus, Week's Best Posts

Lloyds issues guidance for run-off syndicates

May 28, 2007 by Carlton Fields

Lloyds has issued a report providing minimum standards and guidance for the individual capital adequacy of syndicates in run-off. This report provides extensive guidance for the management of such syndicates, in order to assist them in achieving the capital standards.

Filed Under: Accounting for Reinsurance, Reorganization and Liquidation, Reserves, Week's Best Posts

COURT HOLDS DISPUTE OVER SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES UNDER REINSURANCE ADMINISTRATION AGREEMENT ARBITRABLE

May 24, 2007 by Carlton Fields

Trustmark Insurance and American General Assurance entered into a Reinsurance Administration Agreement with Transamerica Occidental Life Insurance, pursuant to which Transamerica provided administration services. Trustmark cancelled the Agreement, and a dispute arose as to Transamerica’s performance of the Agreement and whether it was entitled to further payments for services that it had provided pursuant to the Agreement. Trustmark and Transamerica reached a “settlement” of the dispute, which later fell apart. There was no written settlement agreement, and although the Agreement contained an arbitration provision, no party sought arbitration of the dispute under the Agreement.

Trustmark sued Transamerica, seeking to compel performance of the settlement agreement. Transamerica moved to compel arbitration. The District Court held that even though there was no written settlement agreement, the arbitration provision of the Reinsurance Administration Agreement covered any dispute “relating to” the parties’ performance of the Agreement, including Transamerica’s claim for further payments under the Agreement. The court therefore compelled arbitration of the substance of the dispute that was covered by the “settlement agreement.” Trustmark Insurance Co. v. Transamerica Occidental Life Insurance Co., Case No. 06-5561 (N.D.Ill. May 1, 2007).

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

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 612
  • Page 613
  • Page 614
  • Page 615
  • Page 616
  • 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.