Category: Reinsurance

CIFG Assurance N.A. v. Assured Guaranty Corp.  (Supreme Court, County of New York, July 26, 2010)

A New York Monoline bond insurer filed suit against its reinsurer for bailing on a contract and compelling it to assume responsibility for a bond insurance policy issued by the insurer after the policy became risky and unprofitable. 

The complaint, filed in New York County Supreme Court, alleges that the reinsurer agreed to reinsure a policy for bondholders of an Iowa water company then changed its mind …

Guy Carpenter & Co., v. Lockton Re. LP

(S.D.N.Y. June 24, 2010)

This action arises out of a dispute over brokerage fees for placing reinsurance coverage. Based upon the allegations contained in the complaint, it appears an employee of John B. Collins Associates, an acquired subsidiary of Guy Carpenter, left Collins for Lockton Re. After his departure, a number of clients that had placed reinsurance coverage through Guy Carpenter left the company for Lockton Re.

According to the complaint, Guy Carpenter did not …

Attached please find the transcript from the Inside Fac Roundtable which was conducted in New York recently.  The roundtable participants included:  Bill Jackson, Senior Vice President at Brit Insurance; Daniel Gerber, Partner at Goldberg Segalla; Elliot Richardson, CEO of Aon Benfield Fac; Frank Costa, President of Berkley Offshore; Jeffrey Kingsley, Partner at Goldberg Segalla; John Trace, Head of US Facultative GCFac; Martha Flanagan, Senior Vice President Facultative Gen Re; and Matthew Keeping, CEO of Willis Facultative.

There were several interesting topics that were discussed including the future …

Employers Reinsurance Corporation v. Massachusetts Mutual Life

(W.D.MO, June 16, 2010)

In a dispute of reinsurance coverage, a reinsurer filed a breach of contract action against its reinsured for allegedly mishandling a large number of claims covered under their agreement.  Specifically, the reinsurer sought a declaration that it had no obligation to follow the reinsured’s settlement actions.  After the court granted judgment in favor of the reinsured on this issue and an issue regarding the applicable statute of limitations, the reinsurer filed …

PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INSURANCE CO. V. GLOBAL REINSURANCE CORPORATION OF AMERICAARIO AS LIQUIDATOR OF RELIANCE INS. CO. V. UNDERWRITING MEMBERS OF LLOYD’S OF LONDON

(E.D. P.A. JUNE 9, 2010)

Global and Pacific had entered into a facultative reinsurance contract that provided for among other things a one million dollar limit in the “reinsurance accepted” portion of the contract.  Pacific began submitting their expenses to Global pursuant to this policy because of an asbestos suit they were involved in.  In September of 2009, …

Ario as Liquidator of Reliance Ins. Co. v. Underwriting Members of Lloyd’s of London Syndicates.

(Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, June 4, 2010)

In this reinsurance action brought by the Liquidator for payment, the parties to a reinsurance contract filed respective motions for summary judgment as to two issues: whether the Liquidator's action is barred by the statute of limitations; and, if not, whether late notice of the claim relieved the defendants, Lloyd's of London Syndicates of any obligation under the reinsurance contract.

In …

Insurance Company of North America v. Public Service Mutual Insurance Company (2^nd Circuit, 2010)

Public Service Mutual Insurance Company (PSMIC) commenced an arbitration against Insurance Company of America and INA Reinsurance (collectively referred to as INA) for payments made to its insured for the settlement of various pollution claims. The panel consisted of an arbitrator chosen by PSMIC and INA, as well as an umpire. The panel signed an order granting judgment in favor of PSMIC.

INA moved for reconsideration, however, while …

Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. v. Insurance Co. of North America

(3^rd Cir. [PA] June 9, 2010)

In a dispute of reinsurance coverage, an insurer reached a $ 137 million settlement with its insured for two sets of claims being brought against it: (1) breast implant claims, relating to safety testing of silicone breast implants; and (2) chemical products claims, relating to chemical products it manufactured including a pesticide commonly known as DBCP.  The insurer then proceeded to allocate those $ 137 million …

Axis Reinsurance Co.
v. Geostar Corp. (N.D. Michigan
May 25, 2010)

Reinsurer was ordered to
advance defense costs in a claim involving investor lawsuits over an allegedly
fraudulent investment scheme involving thoroughbred horse breeding.  Policyholder has exhausted its primary
carrier and sought to obtain coverage of defense costs from its excess insurer. Specifically, the order held that even though the
excess insurer didn't have to defend the policyholder in the horse breeding
scheme, it still had to advance defense costs for matters covered by …