• 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

Tokio Marine places securitization of typhoon risks

September 11, 2006 by Carlton Fields

Tokio Marine & Nichido Fire Insurance Co. has arranged reinsurance cover for approximately $200 million of typhoon risks by means of a securitization. Swiss Re accepted reinsurance of the risks and transferred the risks to a special purpose Cayman Islands company which issued the securities. The five year, BB+ rated securities transaction was designed and sold with the assistance of SwissRe Capital Markets Corporation.

Filed Under: Alternative Risk Transfers

UK – Reinsurance broker not entitled to double brokerage

September 11, 2006 by Carlton Fields

The UK Court of Appeal has held that a reinsurance broker was not entitled to receive brokerage on both a deposit premium and on the total adjusted premium (without deduction of the deposit premium). This was a question of the interpretation of four excess of loss reinsurance contracts and seven burning cost contracts. Absalom v. TCRU Ltd., [2005] EWCA Civ 1586 (December 19, 2005).

Filed Under: Brokers / Underwriters, UK Court Opinions

Arbitration award confirmed over objection of regulator

September 8, 2006 by Carlton Fields

In Koken v. Cologne Reinsurance (Barbados) Ltd., Case No. 98-0678 (USDC M.D. Pa. Aug. 23, 2006), a District Court reaffirmed its earlier decision that an arbitration provision was binding upon the Insurance Commissioner of Pennsylvania, acting as the liquidator of American Integrity Insurance Company, rejecting an argument based upon the McCarran-Ferguson Act. The Court declined to vacate the majority of the award under the manifest disregard of law standard, holding that “an erroneous interpretation by the arbitration panel does not warrant a finding of manifest disregard,” but vacated one paragraph of the award as being in manifest disregard of law, becuase it continued an insurance coverage past the time provided for by an unambiguous Pennsylvania statute.

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

District Court refuses to vacate arbitration award

September 7, 2006 by Carlton Fields

In Hilb Rogal & Hobbs Co. v. Golub, Case No. 05-574 (USDC E.D. Va. Aug. 18, 2006), a non-insurance case, a District Court refused to vacate an arbitration award under the manifest disregard of law standard, holding that “[t]he mere fact that an arbitration panel reached a legal conclusion in error is not sufficient for vacatur.”

Filed Under: Confirmation / Vacation of Arbitration Awards

Law journal article addresses hurricane loss reinsurance issues

September 6, 2006 by Carlton Fields

Vincent Vitkowsky, Reinsurance Issues Arising From the 2005 Hurricane Season, 41 Tort Trial & Ins. Prac. L. J. 999 (Spring 2006) – the author addresses issues likely to arise under reinsurance of hurricane losses, including coverage and claim adjustment issues, the follow-the-fortunes doctrine, “occurrence” definitions and aggregation of losses.

Filed Under: Law Review Articles About Reinsurance

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 648
  • Page 649
  • Page 650
  • Page 651
  • Page 652
  • 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.