Travelers sues reinsurer Factory Mutual for payments made to the ACandS Settlement Trust

Travelers Casualty and Surety Company v. Factory Mutual Insurance Co., No. 3:11-cv-00216 (D. Conn.)

In a Complaint filed on February 8, 2011, Travelers filed suit against its reinsurer, Factory Mutual Insurance Co., seeking approximately $539,000 for payments made by Travelers as part of a $449 million asbestos-related settlement on behalf of Travelers’ insured, Armstrong Contracting and Supply Company (“ACandS”). Travelers alleges that Factory Mutual promised to pay Travelers in accordance with reinsurance treaties to which Factory Mutual subscribed, known as Travelers Casualty’s Blanket Excess Loss

Continue Reading

Reinsurer Files Declaratory Judgment Action to Disqualify Law Firm’s Representation of Insurer

Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London v. Sidley Austin LLP

(Mass Super. Ct. November 30, 2010)

 

Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London (“Lloyd’s”) issued a reinsurance policy to Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (“Liberty”).  After Lloyd’s refused to pay reinsurance billings, on April 6, 2010 Liberty commenced an arbitration against Lloyd’s.

 

Liberty retained the law firm of Sidley Austin LLP to give it advice with regarding to its potential claims under the reinsurance agreements.  Resolute Management Inc. (“Resolute”) manages United States direct insurance claims

Continue Reading

District Court Dismisses Cases Against Reinsurance Policyholder Sua Sponte For Lack Of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Health Facilities of California Mut. Ins. Co., Inc. v. British American Ins. Grp., Ltd. et.al.(United States District Court, Central District of California, January 11, 2011)

This reinsurance dispute arises from claims involving the return of excess deposits and premiums from certain reinsurance contracts entered into by plaintiff, Health Facilities of California (HFC), an incorporated risk retention group.  Defendants, British American Insurance Group (BAIG) and Peter Myrtle, are Louisiana citizens acting as reinsurance intermediaries transmitting premiums payments, payments of return premium and collecting payments. 

HFC

Continue Reading

Insurer sue three reinsurers to recover amounts paid in loss settlements for asbestos-related injuries on behalf of ACandS.

Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co., Case No. 3:11-cv-00107 (D. Conn. Jan. 19, 2011).

On January 19, 2011, Travelers Casualty and Surety Company (“Travelers”) filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut against three reinsurers who allegedly failed to pay valid claims. Travelers seeks a declaration of coverage and damages for breach of contract. The suit involves reinsurance treaties referred to as Travelers Blanket Excess of Loss Reinsurance Agreements, covering April 1976 through April 1979.

In its

Continue Reading

First Department Reinstates Reinsurance Action Complaint

Global Reinsurance Corporation. v. Equitas Ltd. et.al. (New York Appellate Division, First Department, January 11, 2011)

This reinsurance dispute arises from claims that the Equitas defendants where at the center of a conspiracy to violate New York’s Anti-Trust law (General Business Law §340, the Donnelly Act) by eliminating claims service competition as to pre-1993 non-life retrocessional reinsurance coverage (i.e., the reinsurers that provide coverage to the insurers or cedents, that provide coverage to the underlying policyholders). The trial court granted defendants motion to dismiss and

Continue Reading

Amendment to New York’s Credit for Reinsurance from Unauthorized Insurers Regulation issued.

Today, amendments to New York’s Regulation No. 20 (11 NYCRR 125), Credit for Reinsurance, took effect. The amended regulation includes numerous changes, including repeal and renumbering of sections as well as major modification to credits insurers may take as to recoverable reinsurance available from unauthorized reinsures.

 Section 125.1 was repealed and a new Section 125.1 was promulgated which permits ceding insurers “act with financial prudence” when entering into reinsurance arrangements. The new Section 125.1 provides 8 risk criteria that ceding insurers should consider. Section 125.1

Continue Reading

District Court Concludes that Insurer Has Right To Intervene In Suit by Policyholder To Obtain Proceeds Of Judgment From Reinsurer

Callon Petroleum Co. v. National Indemnity Co. (E.D.N.Y. December 23, 2010)

In 2000, plaintiff policyholder obtained a judgment against defendant insurer intervener out of a surety bon issued by insurer.  Insurer failed to satisfy the judgment and policyholder commended that action against defendant reinsurer on the bond to collect the judgment out of the reinsurance proceeds.  Insurer subsequently filed a motion to intervene

Court held that insurer was a proper intervening party because it satisfied the four elements for intervening, namely: (1) file a timely

Continue Reading

Summary Judgment Granted to Insurer on Rescission and Exclusion

Great Lakes Reinsurance (UK) PLC v. Morales (S.D. Fla. December 9, 2010)

Plaintiff is a marine insurance company which issued a policy affording Hull & Machinery coverage on a 2005 33-foot Avanti power vessel owned by Romilio Morales.  On October 29, 2008, Jorge Barreiro operated the vessel, put the vessel on its trailer, parked the trailer in the driveway of his residence and went to work the next morning.  Barreiro’s residence did not have a fence or gate.  Barreiro’s wife noticed the vessel was missing

Continue Reading