The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in a securities case, affirmed the refusal of a District Court to vacate an arbitration award. Appellant conceded that none of the four bases for vacating an award articulated by the Federal Arbitration Act were present, but contended that the award should be vacated nevertheless because the award was “in manifest disregard of the law.” The Court described this standard as requiring that a panel ignore well defined, explicit law that was clearly applicable to the case, and that decisions based upon debatable points of law and disputed issues of fact did not satisfy this standard. Kurke v. Oscar Gruss and Son, Inc., Case No. 05-7018 (D.C. Cir. July 18, 2006).
California reinsurance regulation proposals
Both the California Legislature and Department of Insurance are considering proposed changes to the regulation of reinsurance. The proposed regulations have been particularly controversial, as some have suggested that they contain substantial deviations from NAIC model provisions. The proposed legislation, Assembly Bill 2400, was amended June 19, 2006, while the Insurance Departmented posted revised proposed regulations on its website on June 14.
Motion to vacate arbitration award rejected as untimely
In an unreported opinion (not available on PACER) not involving reinsurance, the Second Circuit affirmed the rejection of a motion to vacate an arbitration award, where the motion was served within the three month period required by the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) for service of such a motion, but was filed one day after the 90 day period expired for filing such a motion under applicable New York law. The Court found that since the FAA contained a service deadline, but not a filing deadline, it was appropriate to apply the filing deadline contained in New York state law, illustrating the importance of being cognizant of both service and filing deadlines. Hakala v. J. P. Morgan Securities, Inc., Case No. 05-3140 (2d Cir. June 21, 2006).
ACE Ltd. completes sale of runoff reinsurers
ACE Ltd. announced the completion of the sale of three runoff reinsurance companies to a London investment firm, reducing its legacy liabilities, including asbestos, by around $900 million and reducing its reinsurance recoverables by about $400 million. The deal, when proposed, drew objections from some of ACE's cedents.
Summary judgment for reinsurer affirmed in collateral assignment case
A Florida Court of Appeal has affirmed a summary judgment in favor of a reinsurer arising out of the partial assignment of the underlying insurance policy as security for a loan, where the reinsurer paid the insured $8 million for a fire loss, ignoring the recorded assignment. Banco Ficohsa v. Aseguradora Hondurena, S.A., – So.2d -, 2006 WL 1999368 (Fla. 3rd DCA July 19, 2006) (slip opinion). Carlton Fields represented Banco Ficohsa in the appeal of this case.