Commentary on insurance and reinsurance disputes and related issues and the website of Schiffer Law & Consulting PLLC
In coverage disputes, policyholders often seek communications between the insurance company and reinsurers to gain insights into the company’s views on the policyholder’s claims. Insurance companies generally resist production of reinsurance communications on various theories. In a recent case, the insurer invoked the “insurer-insured privilege.”
Continue reading “No Privilege for Information Provided to Reinsurer”
Who decides whether an arbitration should go forward is often a controversial issue. Is it the court or is it the arbitration panel? In a recent case, a Michigan federal court determined that it was the arbitrators that had to decide whether a limitations provision in a reinsurance contract precluded arbitration.
Continue reading “Michigan Federal Court Holds Arbitrator to Decide Arbitrability Timeliness Dispute”
In my latest Reinsurance Commentary for IRMI.com, I have revised a 2004 commentary on the access to records clause and related issues. With the numerous requests for “reinsurance information” in coverage cases, the issue of what information is a reinsurer entitled to and what information needs to be withheld because of privilege concerns has only grown in importance. This commentary discusses the reinsurer’s rights under the access to records clause, its purpose and its limits. I hope you find it useful. Click here for access. For more Reinsurance Commentaries, click here.
The great deference given to arbitrators and their awards is unquestionable in the US. Under the Federal Arbitration Act, there is no appeal of an arbitral award. Parties can only seek to modify, vacate or confirm an arbitration award. The court’s scope of review of an arbitration award is narrow. Where, as in reinsurance arbitrations, arbitrators are given even greater leeway to decide cases–especially where there is an honorable engagement clause–the courts’ scope of review of an arbitration award is restricted even further.
In a recent case, the Seventh Circuit reiterated these concepts in the context of a reinsurance arbitration with multiple awards involving the billing of asbestos-related losses.
Continue reading “Seventh Circuit Reiterates the Great Deference Given to Arbitral Awards”
I recently posted about the Ninth Circuit’s decision compelling arbitration under the New York Convention after holding that the McCarran-Ferguson Act did not reverse preempt the Convention. Two months earlier, the federal district court in Puerto Rico reached the same conclusion.
Continue reading “Puerto Rico Federal Court Compels Arbitration Under the New York Convention”
Reinsurance arbitration awards, like most commercial arbitration awards, are subject to confirmation in the courts. This turns the final arbitration award into a court judgment ripe for enforcement if necessary. This is nothing new and when there is no opposition to the petition to confirm there is no mystery as to the result. While the odd case does exist where the court will not confirm an arbitration award, generally an unopposed confirmation will be granted. So why talk about this then? Because sometimes it is good to revisit basic rules and concepts. That’s what a federal court did recently in confirming an unopposed reinsurance arbitration award.
Continue reading “Confirming a Reinsurance Arbitration Award”
The Ninth Circuit has weighed in on the controversy over whether state anti-arbitration provisions in insurance codes reverse preempt the arbitration provisions of The Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the “New York Convention”) because of the McCarran-Ferguson Act. The court joined several other circuits in holding that Article II, Section 3 of the New York Convention is self-executing and, therefore, arbitration can be compelled.
Continue reading “Ninth Circuit Compels Arbitration Holding Art. II, Sec. 3 of New York Convention Self-Executing”
Insurance coverage and reinsurance disputes over asbestos settlements continue to occupy the courts. Many of the reinsurance disputes revolve around how facultative certificates of reinsurance must respond to underlying asbestos settlements involving umbrella policies. The issue typically involves whether the expenses associated with the defense of the underlying claims is recoverable in excess of the underlying policy limits. In a recent case, the Second Circuit issued a fairly long decision on this issue.
Continue reading “Second Circuit Rules Facultative Certificates Respond On a Cost-Inclusive Basis in Asbestos Dispute”
Challenging the qualifications of an arbitrator is difficult. Most courts reject pre-arbitration challenges and require the objecting party to wait for a final award to raise a challenge. But sometimes the stars align and the challenge is allowed. In a recent case, a California federal court accepted the challenge on cross-motions to compel arbitration and disqualified a party-appointed arbitrator for not being disinterested.
Continue reading “Court Disqualifies Party-Appointed Reinsurance Arbitrator Prior to Arbitration”
Insurance coverage litigation often involves document production requests for reinsurance information and communications. Courts are mixed on granting motions to compel production of reinsurance information. But what happens to reinsurance-related evidence when it comes to trial? One court recently answered that question.
Continue reading “Motion in Limine Granted Precluding Evidence of Reinsurance in Insurance Coverage Trial”
