Category: Reinsurance

LEXINGTON INSURANCE CO. V. AGF INSURANCE LIMITED ET AL  [2009] UKHL 40 (July 30, 2009)

The central issue before the United Kingdom’s High Court in this action is whether a reinsurer is responsible for the full amount of the cedent’s costs associated with a court ordered environmental clean-up under the theory of “joint and several liability.”  The pollution cited to in the underlying action occurred over several decades, but the reinsurance contract covered only a portion of that timeframe.    

In …

In re an Arbitration in London, England between Northfolk Southern Corp. et al v. ACE Bermuda LTD  (Northern District Ill., June 15, 2009)

The named insured and named party in a London reinsurance arbritration requested that the district court order a non-party witness to testify in the arbitration.  The movants relied exclusively on 28 U.S.C. §1782, which provides a district court with the inherent power to order a person to testify or provide documents for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal. 

The non-party …

In light of the growing volatility in the insurance industry, it should come as no surprise that there is an increase in the number of reinsurance lawsuits involving the original policyholder (or insured) and the reinsurer.  Traditionally, the original policyholder was rarely aware of the existence of the reinsurance agreement between its insurer and reinsurer.  Now, with the number of direct action lawsuits between the original policyholder and reinsurer growing, reinsurers must be aware of these recent decisions.  Attached please find our article which examines the potential impact …

TIG Insurance Co. v. Century Indemnity Co. et al

(Southern District of New York, June 4, 2009)

Philadelphia-based reinsurers submitted a motion to change the venue of a reinsurance dispute from the Southern District of New York to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  The reinsurers argued that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1404(a) Philadelphia would be a more convenient forum for themselves and for party and non-party witnesses.  Moreover, they argued that the locus of operative facts is in Philadelphia where the reinsurance …

Click below for a free copy of Goldberg Segalla's Reinsurance Review June 2009 edition. 

If you would like the Review to be sent to you directly via email, please email Jeffrey Kingsley at [email protected] 

Download REINSURANCE REVIEW NEWSLETTER – JUNE 2009…

Supreme Court Decision – Download Andersen.v.Carlisle

Tenth Circuit Decision – Download Mid-Continent v. General Re

Eighth Circuit Decision – Download In re Acceptance Insurance Co.

Third Circuit Decision – Download Swiss Reinsurance v. Airport

Northern District of California Decision - Download The Flintkote Co. v. General Accident Assurance Co.

Eastern District of Louisana Decision  - Download Imperial Trading Co. v. Travelers

Supreme Court of Ohio Decision  - Download Olympic Holding Co. v. ACE Limited

Supreme Court of New Hampshire Decision  - Download In the Matter …

MID-CONTINENT CASUALTY CO. V. GENERAL REINSURANCE CO.

(CIVIL ACTION NO.:   07-5050 – MAY 22, 2009)

Appellant-reinsurer appealed a decision from the district court of Oklahoma in which it denied its motion to stay the action and compel arbitration pursuant to the reinsurance agreement entered into by the parties.  Appellant-reinsurer argued that Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) was controlling and thus arbitration, not federal court, was the proper venue to resolve any dispute.  The lower court concluded that  Oklahoma law, …