A United States Magistrate Judge has recommended the denial of a motion to dismiss filed by a California reinsurer of the obligations of a New York reinsured under a bond quota share reinsurance agreement. Sirius America Insurance Co. v. SCPIE Indemnity Co., Case no. 05-7923 (S.D. N.Y. Sept. 3, 2006). The Court relied heavily on the fact that payments under the reinsurance agreement would only benefit the New York reinsured.
Nonadmitted and Reinsurance Reform Act passes House
The Nonadmitted and Reinsurance Reform Act of 2006 was passed by the House of Representatives by a vote of 417-0. The Senate is in recess for the election period, and it is not clear whether the Senate will take up this bill before the end of the year.
Court confirms award granting collateral estoppel effect to prior foreign trial decision
A reinsurer (Sphere Drake Insurance Limited) which successfully persuaded an arbitration panel to accord collateral estoppel effect to a decision of the London, England, Commercial Court, has convinced a District Court to confirm the award, which avoided four excess of loss reinsurance slips. The London Commercial Court had determined that the four slips at issue in the arbitration had been procured through fraud by the reinsurer’s broker, and were void. The startling aspect of this decision is that the reinsured in the arbitration, Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, had not been a party to the London case. The Court found that the decision did not violate due process, since Lincoln was in “privity” with the broker party to the London case due to a similarity of interests. Sphere Drake Insurance Limited v. Lincoln National Life Insurance Co., Case no. 05-6411 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 13, 2006). Given the deference given to arbitration awards, it may be very difficult for Lincoln to obtain reversal of this decision on appeal. Further background is provided in Sphere Drake’s motion for confirmation of the arbitration award. The London Commercial Court decision (Sphere Drake v. EIU) was the subject of an earlier entry in this blog.
Court dismisses case against Equitas entities for lack of jurisdiction
A US District Court, which had twice before denied motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction filed by Equitas Holdings Limited, Equitas Reinsurance Limited and Equitas Limited, has granted a motion to dismiss on the same ground filed by the same entities in a third case seeking arbitration of issues arising out of the denial of reinsurance claims. Employers Insurance Company of Wausau v. Equitas Holdings Limited, Case no. 06-291 (W.D. Wisc. Sept. 12, 2006). The Court found that the factual record before it in the prior cases had not been fully developed, and that it was joining the majority of courts that had ruled on this issue.
Court dismisses case against Equitas for lack of jurisdiction
A US District Court, which had twice before denied motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction filed by Equitas Holdings Limited, Equitas Reinsurance Limited and Equitas Limited, has granted a motion to dismiss filed by the same entities in a third case seeking arbitration of issues arising out of the denial of reinsurance claims. Employers Insurance Company of Wausau v. Equitas Holdings Limited, Case no. 06-291 (W.D. Wisc. Sept. 12, 2006). The Court found that the factual record before it in the prior cases had not been fully developed, and that it was joining the majority of courts that had ruled on this issue.