Jurisdictions

Subscribe to Jurisdictions via RSS

As our readers know, we have been following the developments in Louisiana Safety Association of Timbermen – Self Insured Fund v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, et al., No. 09 945, a case under consideration for certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court that concerns whether Article II of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, as implemented by Chapter 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act (the “FAA”), is an “Act of Congress” subject to the anti preemption provision of the McCarran Ferguson Act, 15 U.S.C. 1011, et seq. …
Read More United States Solicitor General: The Convention Is Not Preempted by the McCarran-Ferguson Act

The next U.S. Re Under 40s Group event will be in New York, at Katwalk on October 7, starting at 6:00.  The U.S. Under 40s Group will be hosting members of the Bermuda Under 40s Re/Insurance Group while they are in New York.  It promises to be an excellent opportunity to meet our friends from Bermuda and  network with other members of the U.S. Re Under 40s Group. …
Read More Join the U.S. Re Under 40s Group on October 7 at Katwalk

In the recent case of Stonebridge Underwriting Limited v Ontario Municipal Insurance Exchange [2010] EWHC 2279, Mr Justice Christopher Clarke considered whether a dispute based on a “typical London market slip policy” should be heard in London or Ontario, Canada.  The policy in question was an excess of loss policy under which Stonebridge Underwriting Limited (on behalf of the members of Syndicate 990) reinsured the Ontario Municipal Insurance Exchange (OMEX). …
Read More UK: Court Considers the Appropriate Forum for Lloyd’s Slip Policy Dispute

In Omega Proteins Limited v Aspen Insurance UK Ltd [2010] EWHC 220 (Comm) the High Court was asked to consider whether a judgment that an insured was liable for breach of contract prevented a court from finding tortious liability within the same cover. …
Read More UK: A Finding of Contractual Liability does not Prevent a Finding of Tortious Liability

Aetna, Anthem Blue Cross, Cigna, Humana, WellPoint, and the Golden Rule subsidiary of UnitedHealth are among the companies that have decided to stop selling child-only policies rather than comply with the new Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) requirement that they cover children with pre-existing conditions effective September 23, 2010. …
Read More Some Large Insurers Stop Offering Children’s Policies

In Granite Rock Co. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters et al., No. 08-1214 (2010) — the United States Supreme Court held — by a vote of seven to two — that the issue of when and whether an arbitration agreement was ratified falls within the exclusive purview of the court, and not the arbitrator, if that determination concerns whether the parties’ intent was to submit the dispute at issue to arbitration. …
Read More U.S. Supreme Court: Ratification Issue to be Determined by Judiciary, Despite Federal Policy Favoring Arbitration of Disputes

As we previously reported here, the National Flood Insurance Program (“NFIP”) will expire on September 30, 2010.  In an effort to halt a series of short-term extensions occurring since 2008, last night the U.S. Senate passed the Flood Insurance Program Reextension Act of 2010 (S. 3814) (the “Act”) to extend the NFIP to September 30, 2011. The Act is sponsored by Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) …
Read More U.S. Senate Passes One-Year Extension for National Flood Insurance Program

The Ministry of Justice has launched  a consultation on guidance about procedures that commercial organisations should put in place to prevent bribery.  The Bribery Act  includes the offence of “a failure by a commercial organisation to prevent bribery“.  An organisation will be liable for a bribe paid on its behalf unless it can demonstrate that it had implemented adequate procedures designed to prevent bribery. …
Read More UK: Ministry of Justice Launches Consultation on Anti-Bribery Procedures

In Rent-A-Center, West, Inc., v. Antonio Jackson, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether, under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), a federal court has the authority to address a party’s claim that an arbitration agreement is unconscionable, where the agreement explicitly delegates that decision to the arbitrator.  The Supreme Court held that courts lack the power to do so, where the party asserting unconscionability does not specifically challenge the delegation provision. …
Read More U.S. Supreme Court Rules that Court Lacks the Authority to Determine Whether an Arbitration Agreement Is Unconscionable