• 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

Colorado revamps reinsurance regulations in response to finite reinsurance concerns and adopts regs for nonadmitted insurers

November 9, 2006 by Carlton Fields

The Colorado Division of Insurance has adopted a comprehensive revision of its regulations with respect to finite reinsurance transactions. The revisions include the repeal of existing regulations regarding Ceding Reinsurance Agreements, new regulations for Credit for Reinsurance, new regulations for Life and Health Reinsurance Agreements, and new regulations for Property and Casualty Reinsurance Agreements. Separately, the Division also adopted regulations establishing standards regarding the placement of insurance by producers and the qualification of insurers pursuant to the Colorado Nonadmitted Insurance Act.

Filed Under: Accounting for Reinsurance, Reinsurance Regulation, Week's Best Posts

Pennsylvania court rules on letter of credit posted by cedent

November 8, 2006 by Carlton Fields

A Pennsylvania court has ruled in a dispute over the sufficiency of a letter of credit posted by a cedent and draws on that instrument. The state court's opinion is available through Mealey's. Eastern Atlantic Ins. Co. v. Swiss Reinsurance America Corp., No. 2004 cv 5514 (Pa. Comm. Pls. Dauphin Co.). There had been a parallel action in federal court, in which the Court abstained to permit the state court to adjudicate the disputes. Eastern Atlantic Ins. Co. v. Swiss Reinsurance America Corp., Case No. 04-1555 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 16, 2004).

Filed Under: Contract Interpretation, Reinsurance Claims

UK court rejects claims against reinsurance broker relating to film financing and production

November 7, 2006 by Carlton Fields

The UK Commercial Court has rejected a claim against a reinsurance broker which placed reinsurance for coverage of risks relating to the financing and production of motion pictures. When the reinsurers successfully contested claims, the reinsured sued the broker, alleging negligence in the placement of the reinsurance. The Court rejected the claims, holding that the reinsured had failed to prove, inter alia, that the loss for which it sought compensation had been caused by a breach of duty by the reinsurance broker. HIH Cas. and General Ins. Ltd. v. JLT Risk Solutions Ltd., [2006] EWHC 485 (Comm. Ct. Mar. 15, 2006).

Filed Under: Brokers / Underwriters

SEC files civil action against RenRe executives relating to finite reinsurance transactions

November 6, 2006 by Carlton Fields

The SEC has filed a civil action against three former executives of Renaissance Reinsurance Ltd., alleging that they were involved in fraudulent finite reinsurance transactions to improve the company's financial statements and earnings. The case was filed in the Southern District of New York. SEC v. Stanard, Merritt and Cash, Case No. 06-7736 (Sept. 27, 2006).

Filed Under: Accounting for Reinsurance, Contract Formation, Week's Best Posts

Court applies follow the fortunes doctrine and rejects late notice claim

November 3, 2006 by Carlton Fields

In a summary judgment posture, a New York state court has rejected a reinsurer's late notice claim, finding that under New York law a reinsurer must prove prejudice due to late notice in order for late notice to constitute a defense to failure to pay claims. The Court found that no evidence of prejudice had been proffered. The Court then enforced a follow the fortunes clause as to the majority of the reinsurance claims at issue, finding that the reinsurer had not developed evidence in extensive discovery that the reinsured had acted fraudulently or in bad faith in paying the claims. The Court denied summary judgment as to claims relating to one underlying insured, based upon limited evidence that suggested possible bad faith in the payment of claims submitted by that party. Granite State Insur. Co. v. Ace American Reinsur. Co., Index No. 604347/04, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York (Aug. 4, 2006).

Filed Under: Reinsurance Claims

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 639
  • Page 640
  • Page 641
  • Page 642
  • Page 643
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 677
  • 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.