The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held in a non-reinsurance case that a District Court correctly denied a motion to vacate an arbitration award on the basis that the arbitration panel “manifestly disregarded the law” by applying Washington law, rather than Arizona law, because the decision was not “completely irrational” and did not constitute a manifest disregard of the law. Parsons v. Polen, 2006 WL 1082820, case no. 04-35654 (9th Cir. Apr. 25, 2006) (opinion not available on Court's web site).
Terrorism Risk Insurance Act: Industry Implications and the Uncertain Future
Mallory Straka, Journal of Reinsurance, vol. 13, no. 2, at 51 (Spring 2006).
The Errors and Omissions Clause: The Duct Tape of Reinsurance?
David Newkirk, Journal of Reinsurance, vol. 13, no. 2, at 27 (Spring 2006).
Lloyds: A Decade of Evolution after 300 Years
Sean McDermott, Journal of Reinsurance, vol. 13, no. 2, at 15 (Spring 2006).
Underwriting Catastrophe Risk: Post Hurricane Katrina
Bill Churney, Journal of Reinsurance, vol. 13, no. 2, at 1 (Spring 2006).