Very often litigation is brought in state court and the opposing party removes the case to federal court. That removal is often met with a motion to remand back to state court. In a recent case, the service of suit clause in the reinsurance agreements affected the court’s decision on a motion to remand.

Read more: Service of Suit Clause Requires Remand in Reinsurance Dispute

In Humphreys v. Assicurazioni Generali, S.p.A. (UK), 1:25-CV-01142 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 31, 2026), the liquidator of an insolvent ceding insurer sued reinsurers in Pennsylvania state court when reinsurers rejected the liquidator’s claims under a series of reinsurance contracts. The reinsurers removed the case to federal court in Pennsylvania.

The liquidator moved to remand back to state court based on the service of suit clause in the reinsurance contracts. The reinsurers opposed remand and moved to strike two declarations on custom and practice.

In granting the liquidator’s motion to remand, the court addressed whether the service of suit clause in the reinsurance contracts prohibited the reinsurers from removing the case from state court to federal court. The court determined that the parties intended that the reinsurance contracts incorporate N.M.A. 772, which was the service of suit clause used in the London market when the reinsurance contracts were negotiated. That clause, held the court, required the reinsurers to go to and stay in the state court, which precluded them from removing the case to federal court.

As to the motion to strike, the court denied the motion because it recognized that the declarations were presented by the liquidator to prove customary practices in the London market at the time the reinsurance contracts were negotiated and not to prove missing terms in the reinsurance contracts.