The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has affirmed a summary judgment in favor of the Society of Lloyd's, enforcing an English judgment against a Lloyd's Name who refused to sign on with and pay reinsurance premium to Equitas. Society of Lloyd's v. Siemon-Netto, Case no. 04-7214 (D.C. Cir. August 8, 2006). At oral argument, the Names made it clear that “the underlying basis of their defense is their belief that the English courts have a 'bias and prejudice in favor of Lloyd's under circumstances which make it impossible for a Name to win.'” Under the Uniform Foreign Money Judgments Recognition Act, a foreign judgment may not be enforced if it was “rendered under a system that does not provide impartial tribunals or procedures compatible with the requirements of due process of law.” The Names did not go so far as to seek the application of this principle, but the Court noted that if they had attempted to do so, they would have failed. The only evidence of “bias and prejudice” was that other Names who had advanced the same position as Appellants had lost their cases, and the mere fact that they had lost did not establish improper partiality. Indeed, the Court noted that “the fact that Names have lost similar (albeit not identical) cases in eight United States Courts of Appeals … would require us to reach the same conclusion regarding American courts.” With that closing statement, the Court affirmed the District Court's ruling. Carlton Fields represented the Society of Lloyd's in this case.
Court of Appeal affirms summary judgment in favor of Lloyd’s against Name
The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has affirmed a summary judgment in favor of the Society of Lloyd's, enforcing an English judgment against a Lloyd's Name who refused to sign on with and pay reinsurance premium to Equitas. Society of Lloyd's v. Siemon-Netto, Case no. 04-7214 (D.C. Cir. August 8, 2006). At oral argument, the Names made it clear that “the underlying basis of their defense is their belief that the English courts have a 'bias and prejudice in favor of Lloyd's under circumstances which make it impossible for a Name to win.'” Under the Uniform Foreign Money Judgments Recognition Act, a foreign judgment may not be enforced if it was “rendered under a system that does not provide impartial tribunals or procedures compatible with the requirements of due process of law.” The Names did not go so far as to seek the application of this principle, but the Court noted that if they had attempted to do so, they would have failed. The only evidence of “bias and prejudice” was that other Names who had advanced the same position as Appellants had lost their cases, and the mere fact that they had lost did not establish improper partiality. Indeed, the Court noted that “the fact that Names have lost similar (albeit not identical) cases in eight United States Courts of Appeals … would require us to reach the same conclusion regarding American courts.” With that closing statement, the Court affirmed the District Court's ruling. Carlton Fields represented the Society of Lloyd's in this case.
Court applies the follow the settlements doctrine to business interruption claim
The follow the settlements doctrine has been applied to business interruption and property damage claims filed by the owner of Universal Studios theme park in Florida, arising out of Hurricane Floyd. The Court granted summary judgment to the reinsured, finding that the reinsurer had not proven that the claims were paid in bad faith or that the claims were not reasonably within the terms of the underlying policy. Houston Casualty Co. v. Lexington Insurance Co., Case No. 05-1804 (USDC SD Tex. June 15, 2006). Two facts were of particular interest: (1) the hurricane changed course, and did not actually hit the park, making actual physical damage attributable to the storm fairly minimal; and (2) although the park was only closed for a single day, the business interruption claim extended over several more days.
Connecticut Insurance Department publishes notice of intention to revise reinsurance regulations
The Connecticut Insurance Department has published notice of its intention to amend its current regulations concerning credit for reinsurance to delete the provision that relates to the disposition of assets of a single beneficiary trust on the insolvency of the reinsurer/grantor. Comments will be received prior through September 22, 2006.
New Jersey court rejects creative malpractice claim against reinsurance broker
In litigation over asbestos-related coverage that has been onging for 20 years, a New Jersey trial court has rejected claims for reinsurance broker malpractice or breach of contract, independent of whether the broker in fact procured coverage, when an insurer was able to raise colorable defenses to coverage such that summary judgment on the coverage issue was not possible. The Court found that such a cause of action would “stretch the limits of malpractice claims beyond any reasonable boundry by giving rise to myriad ill-defined and amorphous issues as to the contours of such a cause of action which would result in insurance claim litigation being more never ending than it already is.” The Court required that the claimant prove that coverage had not been obtained in order to establish liability. Owens Insurance, Ltd. v. Reiss Holdings, Ltd., Docket No. L-9575-02, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County (June 14, 2006). In earlier proceedings, the reinsured had taken the position that even if coverage had been obtained, if the coverage did not encompass all of the risks that the broker had been instructed to reinsure, the reinsured would seek to hold the broker liable for any unreinsured losses. This might be a particularly interesting claim here, since the broker, and its affiliates, had set up a captive insurance company that was the reinsured under the treaties at issue, and hence were driving forces in the structuring of the risks and the various layers of insurance and reinsurance. It is not clear whether the reinsured will pursue that theory.