• 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
You are here: Home / Arbitration / Court Decisions / Confirmation / Vacation of Arbitration Awards / VACATUR OVER “FRAUD-ON-THE-PANEL” AFFIRMED BY APPELLATE COURT

VACATUR OVER “FRAUD-ON-THE-PANEL” AFFIRMED BY APPELLATE COURT

May 26, 2011 by Carlton Fields

The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed a ruling vacating a reinsurance arbitration award as having been procured by fraud. Virginia Surety and Lloyds entered into two motor vehicle warranty contractual liability reinsurance agreements, one covering a period starting in 1996 and one in 1998. Virginia Surety demanded arbitration, contending that Lloyds wrongly refused to pay amounts owed on both treaties. The parties arbitrated, and, at the end of the proceeding, but prior to submission, the parties announced they had settled all disputes arising from the 1996 Treaty, each party to bear its own costs, and that they only needed a decision as to the dispute under the 1998 Treaty. The panel thereafter found in favor of Lloyds, relieving it of payment obligations, and directing it to return premiums under the 1998 Treaty. The panel also made an award of costs and expenses due to its finding of material misrepresentations on the part of Virginia Surety, and ordered Lloyds to submit billings for costs and fees. Lloyds submitted billings, under condition of confidentiality, and the panel enforced confidentiality against Virginia Surety, despite its attempts to seek to review the billings. The panel awarded Lloyds $2 million in costs and fees. Virginia Surety moved to vacate, arguing that the size of the costs and fees award indicated that Lloyds submitted billings relating to both the 1996 Treaty dispute and the 1998 Treaty dispute, which was a fraud perpetrated on the panel, because the parties had agreed that each would bear its own costs for the 1996 Treaty dispute. The court agreed, finding that Virginia Surety made the required showing for vacatur due to fraud, as Lloyds had in fact submitted billings pertaining to both disputes. Virginia Surety Co., Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, No. 09-CH-45355 (Ill. App. Ct. April 20, 2011).

This post written by John Pitblado.

Filed Under: Confirmation / Vacation of Arbitration Awards

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.