• 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

McCarran-Ferguson Forces Court To Deny Motion To Compel Arbitration

March 15, 2007 by Carlton Fields

An Oklahoma District Court was forced to deny the defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, despite the parties’ reinsurance contracts that contained clear and unambiguous arbitration clauses. Pursuant to the McCarran-Fergusson Act, the court was required to apply a state statute prohibiting the enforcement of arbitration clauses in any contract “which reference[s] insurance.” The court also concluded that Oklahoma common law could not save the arbitration agreements. Citing to an Oklahoma Supreme Court case, the court stated that “arbitration provisions falling outside of the UAA [Uniform Arbitration Act] are governed by common law and, generally, ‘agreements to submit future controversies to arbitration are contrary to public policy.’” Cannon v. Lane, 867 P.2d 1235 (Okla. 1994). Although the court acknowledged several subsequent cases stating that the public policy of Oklahoma favors arbitration, the court distinguished those cases because they all fell within the purview of the UAA. Since Cannon has not been overruled, the District Court was bound by it and forced to deny the motion to compel arbitration. The court also rejected defendant’s argument that the Oklahoma statute violates the Contracts Clause of the Federal Constitution. Mid-Continent Casualty Co. v. General Reinsurance Corporation, Case No. 06-CV-0475 (N.D.Okla. Feb. 15, 2007).

Filed Under: Arbitration Process Issues

Court confirms arbitration award with no choice of law

March 14, 2007 by Carlton Fields

A District Court has confirmed an arbitration award finding no coverage under an insurance policy due to the presence of an absolute pollution exclusion. The policy did not have a choice of law provision, and the arbitration grew out of a declaratory judgment action filed by the insurer in US District Court in Indiana. Indiana law does not enforce the absolute pollution exclusion. Since the arbitration agreement provided for arbitration under the rules of the American Arbitration Association, which did not require that any substantive law apply, the arbitration panel declined to apply Indiana law, and arrived at what it viewed to be a fair and just decision. The District Court found no error in this decision. Reliance Ins. Co. v. Raybestos Products Co., Case No. 97-0027 (USDC S.D. Ind. Jan. 27, 2007). Additional background information may be found in the memoranda filed by Reliance and Raybestos as to whether the award should be confirmed or vacated.

Filed Under: Confirmation / Vacation of Arbitration Awards

Reinsurer’s Calculation Of “Incurred Loss” Could Lead To Finding Of Bad Faith

March 13, 2007 by Carlton Fields

BJC, a network of hospitals is the sole shareholder of ATG, a captive insurance company that provides insurance for BJC. A dispute arose between ATG and its reinsurer, Columbia Casualty pertaining to the “incurred loss condition” clause in their reinsurance agreement. The incurred loss condition provided that continued coverage would be conditioned upon an incurred loss ratio of less than 75%. A few days before the end of the second policy year, Columbia terminated the agreement, claiming that BJC had exceeded the incurred loss ratio on an aggregate basis and on an individual claim.

Much of the case revolved around the actuarial work Columbia presented to BJC to justify Columbia’s determination that the incurred loss ratio had exceeded 75%. While the Eighth Circuit agreed that Columbia had broad discretion to determine the incurred loss, it held BJC presented sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that Columbia acted in bad faith.

The Court also agreed with the district court’s decision to strike the prayer for punitive damages because ATG’s complaint failed to allege fraud with the particularity required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b).

Finally, the Court affirmed the district court’s finding that BCA was precluded from recovering compensatory damages resulting from Columbia’s decision to terminate the Contract because BJC failed to properly quantify its costs.

BJC v. Columbia Casualty, Case No. 06-1326 (8th Cir., February 23, 2007).

Filed Under: Contract Interpretation, Reinsurance Avoidance

NAIC Committee takes action on reinsurance collateral proposal

March 12, 2007 by Carlton Fields

The NAIC has issued a news release with respect to action taken today by the NAIC's Financial Condition (E) Committee at the NAIC's Spring National Meeting, which is currently underway in New York City. The news release reports that the Committee has directed the Reinsurance Task Force to continue to work on technical details within the Reinsurance Evaluation Office Proposal, and to consider the design of a revised US reinsurance regulatory framework. For details, see the news release on the NAIC's Internet site.

Filed Under: Reinsurance Regulation, Week's Best Posts

Tenth Circuit affirms confirmation of arbitration award

March 12, 2007 by Carlton Fields

In a non-insurance arbitration, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has affirmed the confirmation of an arbitration award, rejecting an argument that the arbitrator had acted in manifest disregard of law. The Court found that while the arbitrator's decision on liability “may be a close call,” it did not constitute manifest disregard of law. The Court also rejected an argument by a party against which an award had been entered that it was not a proper party to the arbitration, since it was not a party to the underlying note. This argument was rejected, in part because the party had vigorously participated in the arbitration without making any objection to its being named as a party. Hicks v. Bank of America, Case No. 05-1399 (10th Cir. Feb. 21, 2007).

Filed Under: Confirmation / Vacation of Arbitration Awards

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 621
  • Page 622
  • Page 623
  • Page 624
  • Page 625
  • 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.