The Chilean legislature was recently presented with a draft law designed to modernize the insurance and reinsurance provisions contained within Chile’s Code of Commerce.  If enacted, the legislation would replace Chile’s current laws concerning private insurance and reinsurance in their entirety. 

Brazil’s insurance regulator, the Superintendency of Private Insurance (SUSEP), recently issued regulations establishing that cessions to occasional reinsurers (see definition below) by Brazilian insurers may not exceed 10% of the total premiums ceded to reinsurers.  The new regulations further establish that no Brazilian insurer may cede more than 50% of the risk it underwrites to occasional reinsurers.  The moves were not unexpected, having been foreshadowed in SUSEP’s discussions with the industry. 

The First Circuit Federal Court of Appeals recently affirmed dismissal of a suit against the Puerto Rico Insurance Commissioner on the basis of a Puerto Rico Insurance Code Article that bars suit against the Commissioner once a liquidator has been appointed. 

In a March 3, 2008 decision, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted a motion to dismiss for improper venue.  See Aguas Lenders Recovery Group, LLC v. Suez S.A., Sociedad General De Aguas De Barcelona, S.A., and Agua y Saneamientos Argentinos S.A., Case No. 06 Civ. 7873 (RLC).    The Court noted that the plaintiff could not hold defendant liable for forum waivers, where defendant was not a party to the relevant agreements and did not even exist when the agreements were created. 

Parana Banco, a Brazilian bank, recently sought authorization to form the country’s first ever private-sector reinsurer.  Parana Banco indicated that the reinsurer, which will be named J. Malucelli Resseguradora S.A., will have nearly $40 million in capital and initially provide reinsurance cover only for surety bonds issued by J Malucelli Seguradora, the insurance unit of the bank. 

In Coromin Ltd v AXA Re & Ors [2007] EWHC 2818 (Comm), the Commercial Court considered whether Coromin was entitled to be indemnified by its reinsurers for the physical damage and business interruption losses suffered by its insured as a result of a defective mill motor at a copper mining and processing facility in Chile. 

The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit recently held that, where a design is beyond the common experience or knowledge of the average layperson, a defective or negligent design case cannot succeed unless the plaintiff presents evidence “as to the relevant standard of care for the design and the way(s) in which the defendant’s design fell below that standard.”