Category: Reinsurance

AXA Verischerung AG v. New Hampshire Ins. Co.
(S.D.N.Y. Apr. 29, 2010)

A federal court recently ruled that a reinsurer’s fraudulent inducement claim against three AIG subsidiaries was not subject to an arbitration clause in the reinsurance facilities and that, even if it was, AIG had waived it arbitral rights.

In 1996, AIG, acting through its brokers, solicited AXA’s predecessor, Albignia’s, participation in a reinsurance facility that was intended to cover a “primary layer” of $10 million with respect to certain energy risks in the …

Continental Casualty Co. v. AXA Global Risks (UK) Limited et al

(W.D. Missouri, April 2, 2010)

Judge Fernando J. Gaitan Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri denied a motion to dismiss by defendants AXA and Generali, as well as plaintiff Continental's motion for a preliminary injunction.  Defendants AXA and Generali had hoped to transfer the case to the U.K., where another case over the same dispute is pending.  Defendants AXA and Generali also argued that the …

Scandinavian Reinsurance Co. Ltd. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co.

(U.S.D.C., S.D.N.Y. February 23, 2010)

A reinsurance company petitioned the federal district court to vacate an arbitration award on the basis that two of the arbitrators failed to disclose their simultaneous involvement in another arbitration and thereby exhibited evident partiality.  The other arbitration involved a pivotal common witness, similar disputed contract terms and issues, and a company that succeeded to the business of the defendant in this arbitration.  During the …

NORCAL Mutual Ins. Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London

(Cal. App. February 22, 2010)

Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, CNA Reinsurance Company Limited and Terra Nova Insurance Company, Limited (“reinsurers”) reinsured NORCAL Mutual Insurance Company (“NORCAL”) for any liability NORCAL might incur under a managed health care professional liability policy issued by NORCAL for the initial policy period of August 1999 through August 2000.  After the reinsurers denied NORCAL’s claim for reinsurance, NORCAL sued for breach of contract, insurance bad …

Trustmark Ins. Co. v. Clarendon National Ins. Co. et al.

(N.D. Ill. February 1, 2010)

Defendants reinsured plaintiff under a Variable Quota Share Treaty (“VQST”) effective on June 1, 1997 and renewed effective June 1, 1998.  Defendants also reinsured plaintiff under excess-of-loss agreements.

The 1998 VQST and the excess-of-loss agreement were the basis of a dispute between the parties that culminated in both parties demanding arbitration.  The parties arbitrated the excess-of-loss agreement first, which arbitration was governed by a confidentiality agreement.…

Dinallo v. Dunav Insurance Co.

(S.D.N.Y. February 1, 2010)

In a motion for reconsideration in the federal district court for the Southern District of New York, a Serbian reinsurance company sought reversal of an order remanding a suit to New York State supreme court.  The suit was brought by the New York Superintendant of Insurance in his capacity as Liquidator of Midland Insurance Company.  Between 1978 and 1980, Midland entered into four separate reinsurance contracts with the Serbian reinsurer.  Each of …

Arrowood Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. Westport Ins. Corp.

(D. Conn. January 5, 2010)

Plaintiff’s predecessor, Royal Surplus Lines Insurance Company (“Royal Surplus”) entered into an agreement pursuant to which it assumed the liabilities and acquired the related assets of Connecticut Specialty Insurance’s Company (“Connecticut Specialty”) covered business as of December 31, 2001.  From February 1, 1999 until May 16, 2000, Employers Reinsurance Company (“Employers Reinsurance”) reinsured a class of policies Connecticut Specialty issued, including one to Equity Residential (“Equity”) that went into …

Century Indemnity Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s

(E.D. Pa, January 11, 2010)

The instant action involves a reinsurance dispute where the two parties have filed a number of motions and cross-motion seeking injunctive relief and contempt of court regarding failure to paid monies owed.

The court denied both parties various motions.  First the court held that plaintiff’s cross-motion to enjoin a separate action pending in New York court based on the “first-filed” rule is without merit.  Specifically, the court held …