Insurance and Reinsurance Appeals
In the last five years, our lawyers have successfully represented U.S. insurance companies in several significant reinsurance appeals. In these decisions, the federal judiciary articulated new standards respecting both substantive and procedural aspects of reinsurance law and practice.
For example, in 2004, the Second Circuit held that reinsurers are bound under the follow-the-fortunes doctrine by the reinsured’s allocation of a settlement payment. In 2005, the First Circuit held that reinsurers are bound under the follow-the-fortunes doctrine by a reinsured’s determinations respecting how many limits of liability are available under multi-year liability policies and that a reinsured can settle multiple claims based on extrapolating from a study of a subset of those claims and then seek reinsurance coverage for those claims from its reinsurer. Finally, in 2006 and 2007, the Third, Seventh and Ninth Circuits held that consolidation of multiple reinsurance arbitrations is a question of arbitration procedure to be decided by arbitrators, and not courts, in the first instance. These decisions established important precedent for the entire reinsurance industry.
Representative appeals in which Sidley has represented parties in
reinsurance disputes include:
- North River Ins. Co. v. ACE Am. Reinsurance Co., 361 F.3d 134 (2d Cir. 2004)
- Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Swiss Reinsurance Am. Corp., 413 F.3d 121 (1st Cir. 2005)
- American Employers’ Ins. Co. v. Swiss Reinsurance Am. Corp., 413 F.3d 129 (1st Cir. 2005)
- Employers Ins. Co. v. Century Indem. Co., 443 F.3d 573 (7th Cir. 2006)
- Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s v. Cravens Dargan & Co., No. 05-56154 & 05-56269, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 20853 (9th Cir., Aug. 14, 2006)
- Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's v. Westchester Fire Ins. Co., 489 F.3d 580 (3d Cir. 2007)
