• 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

Court enforces contractual arbitrator appointment procedure and holds that arbitrators should decide whether to consolidate multiple arbitrations

October 19, 2006 by Carlton Fields

A District Court has entered an Order to enforce the contractually agreed-upon procedure for appointing a third arbitrator in an insurance matter, setting deadlines for each step of the process. The Court also held that whether arbitrations regarding four different insurance agreements should be consolidated was a matter to be decided by the arbitrators. Clearwater Insurance Co. v. Granite State Insurance Co., Case No. 06-4472 (USDC N.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2006).

Filed Under: Arbitration Process Issues

Court enforces agreement regarding appointment of arbitrators

October 19, 2006 by Carlton Fields

A District Court has entered an Order to enforce the contractually agreed-upon procedure for appointing a third arbitrator in an insurance matter, setting deadlines for each step of the process. The Court also held that whether arbitrations regarding four different insurance agreements should be consolidated was a matter to be decided by the arbitrators. Clearwater Insurance Co. v. Granite State Insurance Co., Case No. 06-4472 (USDC N.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2006).

Filed Under: Arbitration Process Issues

UK Court permits substitution of party in arbitration and expanded damage request

October 17, 2006 by Carlton Fields

The UK Commercial Court has approved an arbitrator's decision to permit the substitution of one Claimant for another to reflect what in effect was a corporate reorganization. It also permitted the Claimant to use a pending arbitration to seek an award of all balances that would come due under the treaty during the pendency of the arbitration, instead of requiring a filing of separate arbitrations for amounts that became due after the commencement of the pending arbitration. Harper Versicherungs AG v. Indemnity Marine Assurance Co., [2006] EWHC 1500 (QB) (June 23, 2006).

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

Court finds pleading insufficiencies in Insurance Brokerage Antitrust litigation

October 16, 2006 by Carlton Fields

In the massive MDL proceeding relating to alleged bid rigging and kickbacks in the insurance brokerage area, the Court has ruled on a motion to dismiss, holding as follows: (1) the McCarran-Ferguson Act exemption does not apply: (2) the antitrust claims are inadequately pled; (3) the RICO claims are inadequately pled; (4) the ERISA claims state a cause of action (although the Court found the facts to be sparse); and (5) the Court reserved ruling as to state law claims, until it decided which federal claims survived motion practice. The Court directed the plaintiffs to file more particular statements as to the antitrust and RICO claims, instead of requiring a further amended pleading. In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation, Case No. MDL 1663 (D. N.J. Oct. 3, 2006).

Filed Under: Brokers / Underwriters, Week's Best Posts

UK Court affirms avoidance of insurance based upon nondisclosure of fraud allegations

October 12, 2006 by Carlton Fields

The UK Court of Appeal has upheld the avoidance of insurance on a vessel based upon the failure to disclose, during the placement of the insurance, that third parties had made allegations of fraudulent conduct by the prospective insured. North Star Shipping Ltd. v. Sphere Drake Insurance, [2006] EWCA Civ 378 (April 7, 2006). Even though the allegations turned out to be lacking in merit, the Court found that they would have been material to an underwriter considering the placement of the insurance.

Filed Under: Reinsurance Avoidance, UK Court Opinions

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 642
  • Page 643
  • Page 644
  • Page 645
  • Page 646
  • 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.