The Seventh Circuit, in a case involving an appeal from an arbitration award in an NASD securities case, stated that “[i]t is tempting to think that courts are engaged in judicial review of arbitration awards under the Federal Arbitration Act, but they are not” due to the narrow grounds for vacating such an award. The Court affirmed the confirmation of an award entered by a panel based upon a motion for summary judgment by the Respondent after the Claimant had presented his case, rejecting the contention that there was no evidence to support the award. Noting that the non-statutory “manifest disregard of the law” basis for vacating an award is limited to matters in which the arbitrators “direct the parties to violate the law,” the Court deferred to whatever inferences the arbitrators might have drawn from what the evidence presented shows, and what it omits. Wise v. Wachovia Securities, Case No. 05-2640 (7th Cir. June 7, 2006). Since the Respondent had not presented any evidence prior to the decision on the merits by the panel, this case demonstrates very substantial deference by a court to an arbitration panel's determination of facts and the sufficiency of evidence.
Mealey's Insurance & Reinsurance Corporate Counsel Conference
Mealey's is hosting an Insurance & Reinsurance Corporate Counsel Conference in Philadelphia September 28-29. View the conference's agenda and other information.
Mealey’s Insurance & Reinsurance Corporate Counsel Conference
Mealey's is hosting an Insurance & Reinsurance Corporate Counsel Conference in Philadelphia September 28-29. View the conference's agenda and other information.
Journal of Reinsurance, Summer 2006 issue
The Summer 2006 of the Journal of Reinsurance, which is published by the Intermediaries & Reinsurance Underwriters Association, contains four articles:
Roger Crombie, Bermuda: From Pushbikes to Sidecars
Christopher M. McGhee, The Catastrohpe Bond Market 2005: Riding Out the Storms
Sharon E. Sonnett, The Regulation of Reinsurance: An Analysis of Proposed Legislative Changes
Michael Haravon, Federalization of Insurance/Reinsurance: A Good Idea?
UK Court rejects contention that party may be an additional insured as an undisclosed principal
A broker was directed to procure a policy on a vessal for the benefit of two parties as co-insureds. It failed to have one party named as an insured. When a loss occurred and the claim of the unnamed party was denied, litigation unsued. The UK Court of Appeal held that losses of the unnamed party resulted from breach of duty by the broker, and that the unnamed party could not be considered to be a co-insured based upon its status as an undisclosed principal of the policy's beneficiary. Talbot Underwriting Ltd. v. Nausch, Hogan & Murray, Inc., [2006] EWCA 889 (June 29, 2006).