• 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

Surplus lines/reinsurance bill reintroduced in Congress

March 7, 2007 by Carlton Fields

Last fall, the Nonadmitted and Reinsurance Reform Act passed the house 417-0, but was not considered by the Senate due to its late passage in the House. A substantially similar bill has been introduced in the House, H.R. 1065. The bill subjects nonadmitted insurers to the premium tax laws of the policyholder's home state, and makes reinsurers subject to the solvency laws of their state of domicile under most circumstances. Due to an amendment to the definition of “qualified risk manager,” the new bill has the support of the Risk & Insurance Management Society, which did not support the bill last year.

Filed Under: Reinsurance Regulation, Reorganization and Liquidation, Week's Best Posts

District Court vacates attorney fee award portion of arbitration award

March 6, 2007 by Carlton Fields

Following arbitration of a dispute between parties to a coinsurance arrangement, an arbitration panel awarded attorney and arbitrator fees and costs to one party. A District Court confirmed the award, but vacated the award of fees and costs, which exceeded three million dollars, concluding that the award exceeded the arbitrators’ powers. The court relied on the terms of the coinsurance agreements, which expressly stated that “[e]ach party shall bear the expense of its own arbitrator…and related outside attorneys’ fees.” The court held that despite the breadth of the agreements to arbitrate, these provisions made clear that the arbitrators had no authority to award outside attorneys’ fees. The Court's decision is reflected in an Order, and a Judgment, with additional information about the case available in Memoranda filed by Reliastar and EMC National Life. Reliastar Life Insurance Company of New York v. EMC National Life Insurance Company, No. 06-cv-10186 (S.D.N.Y., February 13, 2007).

Filed Under: Confirmation / Vacation of Arbitration Awards, Week's Best Posts

Zurich companies settle insurance bid-rigging claims

March 5, 2007 by Carlton Fields

A group of companies has settled civil and regulatory issues relating to alleged bid rigging in the sale of insurance. A District Court has approved a settlement whereby Zurich Financial Services, Zurich American Insurance Company, Steadfast Insurance Company, Fidelity and Deposit of Maryland, Empire Fire and Marine Insurance Company, American Guarantee and Liability Insurance Company, Empire Indemnity Insurance Company and Assurance Company of America have settled all claims in a pending MDL action, and also settled with numerous state attorneys general and insurance departments. In re: Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 04-5184/MDL No. 1663 (USDC D.N.J. Feb. 16, 2007). Details of the settlement, which will cost the companies over $200 million, may be found in a Memorandum In Support of a motion seeking approval of the settlement.

Filed Under: Arbitration / Court Decisions, Reinsurance Regulation

Tenth Circuit adopts arbitral immunity doctrine

March 1, 2007 by Carlton Fields

In an appeal from an award in an NASD-sponsored arbitration, the Tenth Circuit has joined virtually all other Circuits in recognizing that arbitrators, arbitral forums and arbitral sponsors are immune from liability for actions taken in connection with administering arbitration. Pfannenstiel v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Case No. 04-1274 (10th Cir. Feb. 20, 2007).

Filed Under: Arbitration Process Issues, Confirmation / Vacation of Arbitration Awards, Week's Best Posts

Court orders production of documents regarding reinsurance of similar risks

February 28, 2007 by Carlton Fields

In an action seeking reinsurance for trucking risks, in which the reinsurer alleged that the reinsurance had been placed in breach of various binding guidelines and agreements, a magistrate judge granted, in part, a motion to compel the reinsurer to produce documents relating to its underwriting process and declination of other trucking risks. The Court believed that the documents were discoverable to rebut the reinsurer's position. Scottsdale Insurance v. American Re-Insurance Co., 8:06-cv-00016 (D. Neb., Feb. 2, 2007)

Filed Under: Discovery

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 623
  • Page 624
  • Page 625
  • Page 626
  • Page 627
  • 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.