Reinsurance Redux - August 2012

more+
less-

In This Issue:

- Texas Supreme Court Holds that Stop-Loss Insurance is Not Reinsurance, but Rather, is Direct Health Insurance Subject to Regulation under the State Insurance Code:

The Texas Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the state’s Court of Appeals, holding that, as a matter of law, stop-loss insurance sold to a self-funded employee health benefit plan is not “reinsurance,” but rather, “direct insurance” subject to regulation under the Insurance Code. Texas Dep’t. Ins. v. Am. Nat’l Ins., No. 10-0374, 2012 WL 1759457 (Tex. May 18, 2012). PAGE 2

- United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Affirms District Court’s Unpublished Opinion that a Surety Bond Holder Did Not Enjoy Cut Through Rights to Reinsurance:

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a District Court’s unpublished decision, holding that the reinsurance agreement at issue did not offer any third-party right to recovery from a surety bond reinsurer. Callon Petroleum Co. v. Nat’l Indem. Co., No. 11-241, 2012 WL 2549500 (2d Cir. July 3, 2012). PAGE 3

- United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Grants Petition for an Arbitration Award in a Reinsurance Dispute, Finding that the Court Had Not Received Opposition to the Confirmation:

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted a petition to confirm an amended arbitration award of $7,957.88 in a reinsurance dispute, finding that the court had not received any opposition to the confirmation. Aurum Asset Managers, LLC v. Banco Do Estado Do Rio Grande Do Sul, No. 08-mc-00102 (E.D. Pa. June 26, 2012). PAGE 4

Please see full publication below for more information.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.