Reinsurance Redux - June 2012

more+
less-

In This Issue:

- Texas Court of Appeals Holds that Insurer’s Consent was Not Required for Modification of a Reinsurance Agreement to be Enforceable:

The Texas Court of Appeals held that an insurer’s consent was not required for the modification of a reinsurance agreement to be enforceable where the modification did not adversely affect the insurer. Arch Reinsurance Co. v. Underwriters Service Agency, Inc., No. 02-10-00365-CV, 2012 WL 1432556 (Tex. Ct. App. Apr. 26, 2012).

- Southern District of New York Affirms Order Compelling Production of Document Relating to Insurer’s Reserve Practices:

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York affirmed a magistrate judge’s order compelling the production of documents relating to the adequacy and reasonableness of an insurer’s reserve practices where the reinsurer was claiming that the insurer acted in bad faith in failing to provide timely notice of claims. Granite State Insurance Co. v. Clearwater Insurance Co., No. 09 Civ. 10607 RKE, 2012 WL 1520851 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 30, 2012).

- United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Affirms Decision to Compel Arbitration of Licensing Dispute:

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin’s decision to compel arbitration of a licensing dispute, holding that the dispute was within the scope of an arbitration provision and that the contractual terms agreed to by the parties could not be disturbed. Promega Corp. v. Life Technologies Corp., 674 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

Please see full newsletter below for more information.

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

CONNECT

Clients of Saul Ewing LLP receive full-service representation at multiple levels of reach and focus,... View Profile »


Follow Saul Ewing LLP: