Welcome back to the Washington State federal court. For those who regularly read this blog you will remember the case where the court granted a motion to compel arbitration against one reinsurer and not the other. That arbitration concluded, which allowed the litigation to continue against the remaining reinsurer. The cedent moved to amend the complaint and the reinsurer move for judgment on the pleadings.Continue reading “Risk Pool’s Motion to Amend Complaint Granted”
It is not the usual case where a reinsurer seeks to compel a policyholder to resolve a dispute in arbitration based on the reinsurance contract’s arbitration provision, but sometimes that makes the most sense. Whether a court will allow it depends on the facts. In a case decided earlier this year, a state intermediate appellate court affirmed the motion court’s denial of the reinsurer’s motion to dismiss or stay in favor of arbitration.Continue reading “Non-Signatory? No Arbitration”
Many arbitration clauses, especially those that reference arbitration rules, provide for a party to go to the court where there is an impasse in appointing the arbitrator or umpire. In a case decided earlier in 2023, an insurance coverage dispute subject to arbitration landed in court to resolve a dispute over selection of the umpire.Continue reading “Court Appoints Umpire in Coverage Dispute”
Attempting to remove an arbitrator at the early stages of arbitration for alleged bias is difficult to do. The ability to make the challenge depends on the law of the jurisdiction governing procedural issues in the arbitration. Nevertheless, even if entertained, a petition to remove an arbitrator for bias is an uphill battle. In a recent case, the petitioner lost the battle, at least in the New York federal court.Continue reading “Bias Challenge to Arbitrator Fails”
As we have said before, it is hard for a policyholder to make a case against its insurer’s reinsurer. That proved to be true again in the Third Circuit.Continue reading “Third Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Insured’s Claims Against Reinsurer”
My most recent Expert Commentary on Reinsurance has been posted on IRMI.com. It covers a brief overview of AI and reinsurance. I hope you like it. You can access the commentary here.
Since the 1970s cedents and reinsurers have been battling over long-term environmental pollution damage. Disputes have arisen over the number of retentions that the cedent should take, the manner in which settlement with the insured should be allocated and other issues. In a recent case, a reinsurer sought summary judgment on a cedent’s breach of contract claim over a specific pollution claim. Unsurprisingly, disputed facts got in the way.Continue reading “Pesky Facts Result in a Denial of Summary Judgment in a Post-Settlement Allocation Case”
My latest IRMI.com Expert Commentary on Reinsurance discusses the concept of back-to-back reinsurance. You can access the commentary here.
Settlement allocations of long-tail losses like pollution claims have long been a source of disputes between cedents and reinsurers. Often the allocation of the underlying settlement depends on the allocation methodology used based on the law of the relevant jurisdiction. The issue becomes more complicated where the reinsurance contract is governed by the law of a different jurisdiction that may not use the same allocation methodology. In a recent case, the United States Circuit Court for the Second Circuit addressed this issue where the cedent claimed back-to-back reinsurance and the reinsurer rejected the allocation methodology.Continue reading “Cedent Prevails on Back-to-Back Reinsurance Recovery”
Recently, I wrote a reinsurance commentary for IRMI.com on reinsurance issues with captive, pools and other risk-sharing entities. Coincidentally, in January 2023, a Washington federal court had to deal with a risk-sharing pool’s claims of breach of a reinsurance contract and a reinsurer’s motion to compel arbitration.Continue reading “Washington Federal Court Grants Motion to Compel Arbitration”