Archive for the ‘Reinsurance claims’ Category.
July 24, 2006, 6:55 am
Cross motions for summary judgment were denied in Professional Consultants Insurance Co. v. Employers Reinsurance Co., Case No. 1:03-cv-216 (D. Vt. March 28, 2006), where the Court found that two reinsurance agreements covering professional liability policies were ambiguous as to whether the reinsurance provided an aggregate annual, or a per-policy, limit on the liability of the reinsurer. This case settled and was dismissed in June 2006. Professional Consultants Insurance Company v. Employers Reinsurance Company, 2006 WL 751244 (D. Vt. March 8, 2006) (slip opinion).
July 24, 2006, 5:13 am
The Connecticut Supreme Court, reversing a decision of the Connecticut Appellate Court that found the issue not to be appealable, has found that the denial of a motion for pre-pleading security in a case brought by Hartford against unauthorized reinsurance companies was an appealable final judgment. The Supreme Court remanded the case for consideration of the merits of the appeal by the Court of Appeal. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co. v. Ace American Reinsurance Co., – A.2d -, 2006 WL 1982910 (Ct. July 25, 2006) (slip opinion).
July 6, 2006, 6:02 am
When a dispute arose over reinsurance for commercial general and professional liability insurance, and the reinsurance agreements were silent as to choice of law, a United States District Court has held that the choice of law provisions of the law of the forum state of the court control choice of law issues. ERC v. Laurier, case no. 03-1650, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida (June 16, 2006).
July 5, 2006, 8:27 am
A United States District Judge dismissed RICO claims asserted against GenRe by the Insurance Commissioners of Tennessee and Virginia in an MDL action relating to the liquidation of Reciprocal of America and various risk retention groups, due to the failure to adequately plead reliance. In re Reciprocal of America Sales Practices Litigation, case no., MDL 04-1551 (June 12, 2006). The claims alleged that GenRe provided illusory reinsurance, under which it did not assume substantial risk.
June 20, 2006, 6:32 am
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated orders entered granting Republic Insurance Company summary judgment interpreting facultative reinsurance certificates, finding that the provisions regarding when definitive statement of loss were required to be submitted were ambiguous, requiring consideration of extrinsic evidence and resolution of the ambiguity by a trier of fact. Folksamerica Reinsurance Co. v. Republic Ins. Co., Case No. 04-2716 (May 26, 2006).
