• 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

Endurance places $235 million cat bond

August 28, 2006 by Carlton Fields

Endurance Specialty Insurance Ltd. (“Endurance”) has acquired $235 million of protection for California earthquake and U.S. hurricane risks, financed through a risk-linked securities program. Endurance, a unit of Bermuda-based Endurance Specialty Holdings Ltd., bought the coverage from Cayman Islands-based Shackleton Re Ltd. Shackleton Re financed the reinsurance through the issuance of a $125 million catastrophe bond and a $110 million multi-year risk-linked credit facility. Endurance’s new reinsurance program has three separate layers of coverage, including: $125 million of reinsurance to cover California earthquake risk for 18 months; $60 million of coverage for U.S. hurricanes in the North Atlantic, Gulf Coast, and certain inland regions for two years; and $50 million of reinsurance for California earthquake or U.S. hurricane losses, occurring within a year of a similar catastrophe, for two years.

Filed Under: Alternative Risk Transfers

Court of Appeal addresses jurisdictional issues regarding arbitration-related matters

August 28, 2006 by Carlton Fields

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has dismissed an appeal of decisions to grant summary judgment to Lloyd's and remand to state court a case filed by Lloyd's against an insured to recover $39 million in claims paid to an insurer/ reinsured pursuant to a confirmed arbitration award rendered under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. This opinion addresses the reviewability of remand decisions and whether the District Court should have retained jurisdiction over state law-based counterclaims. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London v. Warrantech Corp., Case No. 04-11168 (5th Cir. Aug. 17, 2006).

Filed Under: Jurisdiction Issues

Renaissance Re offers to settle probe by SEC

August 25, 2006 by Carlton Fields

RenaissanceRe Holdings Ltd. (“RenRe”) has offered to pay $15 million to settle Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) probes into the company’s three-year restatement of earnings. Under the proposed settlement—under which RenRe will not admit or deny any wrongdoing—the reinsurer will pay the SEC $15 million in civil penalties and will disgorge $1. In addition, RenRe will hire an outside consultant to review the reinsurer’s internal controls and policies, among other things. The settlement would not resolve an ongoing investigation by the U.S. Attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York, or a consolidated securities class action lawsuit pending against the company and certain current and former officers.

RenRe acknowledged in its 2004 10-K filing that two transactions that were accounted for as insurance failed to transfer enough risk to meet accounting standards. One was an aggregate excess-of-loss reinsurance agreement under which RenRe ceded business to Inter-Ocean; the other, an agreement to sell reinsurance recoverables to Inter-Ocean. The effect of the restatement was to boost RenRe’s 2001 and 2003 net income by $20.6 million and $1.3 million, respectively, and reduce its 2002 net income by $21.9 million.

Filed Under: Reinsurance Regulation

Half day reinsurance update seminar in New York City

August 24, 2006 by Carlton Fields

The New York City Bar Center for CLE and the Insurance Federation of New York are co-sponsoring a half day program titled Current Developments in Reinsurance Law, Tuesday morning, September 19, 2006 at the New York City Bar facility.

Filed Under: Reinsurance Meetings

Party loses right to appoint arbitrator due to untimely appointment

August 24, 2006 by Carlton Fields

An arbitration provision required that both parties appoint an arbitrator within 30 days of receipt of written notice from the other party requesting that it do so. Lloyd's appointed an arbitrator timely. The 30th day after receiving such notification for Argonaut fell on the Sunday before Labor Day, and when the appointment was not made by the end of Sunday, Lloyd's appointed a second arbitrtator on Labor Day. Argonaut appointed an arbitrator the following day, claiming that the time for its appointment was extended since its deadline fell on a Sunday, followed by a holiday. The Court disagreed, holding that the agreement to appoint within 30 days was binding, and upheld Lloyd's appointment of two arbitrators. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's v. Argonaut Insurance. Co., Case No. 04-5852 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 8, 2006).

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

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 650
  • Page 651
  • Page 652
  • Page 653
  • Page 654
  • 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.