July / August 2006
Contract Certainty: Myth or Reality?
Mike Palmer and David Tiplady look at the revision of market practices and ask, is contract certainty the answer?
Download (pdf)
|
|
August 2006
DLA Piper Reinsurance Bulletin August 2006
Current Issues: The Compensation Act; Offers to Settle; Comments on the WFUM Scheme.
Case Notes : Without prejudice settlements; An agent's ostensible authority; The question of
continuing duty; Claiming loss of staff time.
DLA Piper Seminars
Download (pdf)
|
|
24 July 2006
R+V Versicherung AG (R+V) v Risk Insurance & Reinsurance Solutions SA & 5 ors [2006] EWHC 1705 (Comm) is yet another decision in the long-drawn-out dispute between the German insurer R+V and Risk Insurance & Reinsurance Solutions SA and related companies ("Risk"). Although fact specific in many respects, this is certainly one of the most interesting reinsurance cases to have gone through the courts in recent years, as it has involved findings of conspiracy, abuse of process, and allegations of contempt of Court. So far no less than 5 judgements have been necessary to deal with all issues of quantum and liability, and committal proceedings may be initiated following the most recent decision. These numerous judgments also cover issues of interest to all insurers and reinsurers; including binding authorities, ratification, relationship with agents and recoverability of investigatory costs.
|
|
Read more... []
|
|
|
Law-Now
July 2006
Without Prejudice Settlements can prejudice your reinsurance recoveries
Settling contentious claims without prejudice to liability is an everyday
occurrence for most Insurers. The vast majority of claims which are subject
to litigation are settled at some point in the course of the proceedings, and
the settlement is usually expressed to be without admission of liability. Most
Insurers would tend to assume that provided inwards settlements are reasonable
and businesslike they will be able to recover the appropriate share of such
settlements from their Reinsurers. The recent decision in Faraday
v Copenhagen Re, however, is a reminder for Reinsureds to check carefully
the wording of the follow the settlements language in their reinsurance contracts
before making such an assumption.
|
|
Read more... []
|
|
10 July 2006
Harding v Wealands, House of Lords, 5 July 2006
English law will determine quantum even where foreign law applies to issues of liability
In Harding v Wealands, the House of Lords has held that for claims in tort brought in England, in which the substantive law is the law of another country, the quantum of damages will be calculated in accordance with the law of England as the law of the forum.
|
|
Read more... []
|
|
5 July 2006
Harper/Turegum and River Thames v Indemnity Marine, London Scottish and Ocean Marine
Effect of Commencing Arbitration Proceedings in which Claimants Wrongly Named
Synopsis:
On 23 June 2006 the Commercial Court held that arbitration proceedings commenced in ignorance of a Part VII transfer, by virtue of which the named claimants no longer had any entitlement under the contract at issue, were not invalid.
Given the increasing frequency with which corporate entities operating within the reinsurance market undergo reorganisation or restructuring, this common-sense decision provides a helpful principal for those involved in reinsurance dispute resolution, particularly in the context of long-tail business. Attempts by a party to avoid or delay proceedings based on a technicality of this nature will not be viewed favourably by the court.
|
|
Read more... []
|
|
July 2006
Threading The Needle Of Insurance Company Insolvency: A Strategy For Policyholders
By Richard W. Fields
and
Paul C. Sullivan
Once an insurance company goes insolvent in the United States, its policyholders usually face significant challenges in collecting for otherwise covered claims. In substantial part, this collection risk arises because any claims pending against the insolvent insurer generally are stayed either by court order or on jurisdictional grounds, putting these claims on hold indefinitely, if not permanently. Moreover, state guaranty funds ultimately may be the policyholder's only source of recovery for claims against the insolvent insurer.
Download (pdf)
Richard W. Fields is a partner and Paul C. Sullivan is an associate in Dickstein Shapiro LLP.
Provided by Dickstein Shapiro LLP - www.dicksteinshapiro.com
|
|
|
|
<< Start < Prev 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next > End >>
|
| Results 196 - 210 of 256 |
If you have an article or information you would like to see published on Runoffmarket.com please get in touch using the Contact Us page or email
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
for more information.
