A California insurance agent arbitrated disputes with an insurance agency to which he had sold his business. The contract provided that any arbitration award would be subject to offsets. An offset claim was presented to the arbitrator, but the award made no mention of the offset request. After the confirmation of the award, the losing party sought to have the court impose the offset. A California Court of Appeal affirmed a ruling that the request was too late, that the party should have applied to the arbitrator to correct the award to specifically address the offset issue pursuant to a California statute, or should have raised the issue during confirmation proceedings. The Court specifically found that the strategy did not constitute an error of counsel for which the party should be provided relief. Kelly v. RMI Ins. Services, Inc., Case No. H030047 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 19, 2006).
Life, health and annuity reinsurance conference
The American Council of Life Insurers and the Society of Actuaries are the organizing sponsors for ReFocus 2007, a conference focused primarily upon issues relating to life, health and annuity reinsurance. The conference will be held March 4-7, 2007, at the Hyatt Regency Lake Las Vegas Resort, Spa & Casino. See the program brochure provided by the event's program committee. For additional information, and to register for the conference, visit the conference's web site.
Mealey's seminars on schemes of arrangement and reinsurance dispute resolution
Mealey's has posted information about two reinsurance-related conferences:
- Solvent Schemes of Arrangement Conference, March 12-13, New York; and
- Fundamentals of Reinsurance Litigation and Arbitration Conference, March 15-16, New Orleans.
Mealey’s seminars on schemes of arrangement and reinsurance dispute resolution
Mealey's has posted information about two reinsurance-related conferences:
- Solvent Schemes of Arrangement Conference, March 12-13, New York; and
- Fundamentals of Reinsurance Litigation and Arbitration Conference, March 15-16, New Orleans.
Court partially dismisses claims arising out of reserve dispute
Converium Holding, a Swiss reinsurance company, issued an IPO in December 2001. Converium's North American unit collapsed in September 2004 after four increases in reserves in a single year. Class action lawsuits followed, alleging that management had grossly misrepresented necessary reserves and failed to disclose reserve disputes with the company's outside auditor. The District Court dismissed claims against the IPO's underwriter and broker and claims against the company and individual defendants relating to the IPO, denying dismissal of certain other claims. In re Converium Holding AG Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-7897 (USDC S.D.N.Y. Dec. 28, 2006). This opinion illustrates the strategic problem of finding a solvent deep pocket in this type of situation, and discusses the “storm warning” doctrine, pursuant to which the Court found that the frequent increases to reserves, in increasing amounts, in a short period of time, put investors on notice of problems despite comfort statements by management.