In Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. v. Insurance Co. of North America, Nos. 06-4100, 06-4101 and 08-1032 (2010), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision holding that a cedent’s settlement allocation was reasonable and binding on the reinsurer, except for the portion of the allocation that was based upon annualized per-occurrence limits for multi-year policies. …
Read More Third Circuit Rules that Follow the Fortunes Doctrine Binds Reinsurer to Part, But Not All, of a Cedent’s Post-Settlement Allocation

We previously blogged about the District of Connecticut’s decision in Arrowood Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. Westport Ins. Corp., No. 08-cv-1393 (D. Conn. 2010), in which the court held that a reinsurer had no duty to honor the portion of a cedent’s loss that was outside the scope of the reinsurance agreement at issue.  In that case, Equity Residential argued that a policy issued to it by Arrowood Surplus Lines Insurance Company had a three-year period and sought coverage for losses that occurred from December 15, 1999 to December 15, 2002.
Read More Second Circuit Finds that Portion of Cedent’s Loss is Outside the Scope of the Reinsurance Agreement, Relieving Reinsurer of any Obligation to Follow the Fortunes

Garnat Trading & Shipping (Singapore) PTE LTD (Garnat) and Vung Tau Shipbuilding Industry Joint-Stock Company (Vung Tau) v Baominh Insurance Corporation (Baominh) [2010] EWHC 2578 (Comm), concerned the loss of a floating dock (carrying a floating workshop) which sank in the course of being towed on a voyage from Vladivostok in Russia to Vung Tau in Vietnam. …
Read More UK: Marine Insurance – Non-Disclosure and Seaworthiness

Greg Hoffnagle of EAPD’s New York office will attend the BP Spill in the Gulf: Litigation & Insurance Coverage Conference in Miami, Florida, which begins later today. …
Read More EAPD Attends BP Spill in the Gulf: Litigation & Insurance Coverage Conference

This updates our October 26, 2010 posting.  With 61% of precincts reporting, 58% of the voters in the State of Washington have rejected Initiative 1082 (“I-1082”).  I-1082 would have allowed for the privatization of workers’ compensation insurance, which currently is only available through the Washington Department of Labor and Industries. …
Read More UPDATE: Washington Voters Reject Elimination Of Workers’ Compensation Monopoly

In Clinton David Jacobs v Motor Insurance Bureau [2010] EWCA Civ 1208, the Court of Appeal held that where a person is injured by an uninsured driver and is entitled to recover from the Motor Insurers Bureau (MIB), that person is entitled to recover damages assessed according to English law, rather than the law where the accident occurred. …
Read More UK: Court of Appeal Rules on Assessment of Damages for Personal Injury in Motor Accidents

In a report published in January 2009, the Competition Commission proposed a prohibition on the sale of payment protection insurance policies (PPI) at the point of sale (see our earlier blogs on the topic, including here). Following a legal challenge by Barclays Bank Plc to the proposed prohibition, the Competition Appeal Tribunal asked the Competition Commission to reconsider the advantages and disadvantages of its proposed remedies package. …
Read More UK Regulation: Competition Commission Confirms its Point of Sale Prohibition in Respect of Payment Protection Insurance

After a preliminary injunction hearing, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas has determined that D&O insurers for the Stanford Financial Group and various related entities are no longer required to advance defense costs relating to criminal charges and civil litigation filed against Mark Kuhrt, Gilbert Lopez and R. Allen Stanford. …
Read More Court Finds Insurers No Longer Required to Advance Defense Costs for Certain Stanford Individuals Due to Money Laundering Exclusion

In a February 8, 2010 blog post, which can be found here, we reported on a then-recent jury verdict in which a Connecticut jury awarded nearly $15 million to a class of automotive body shop plaintiffs based on the jury’s finding that the insurance company defendant violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. …
Read More Cigarette Rule Update – Still Smokin’ in Connecticut