Several important developments have occurred in a reinsurance dispute we last reported on in a September 27, 2011 post. The dispute is between Lexington Insurance and Tokio Marine & Nichido Fire Insurance. On March 28, the federal district court granted Lexington’s motion for judgment on the pleadings seeking a declaration that its obligations to provide excess insurance coverage to the Port Authority was not contingent upon exhaustion of the limits of the underlying primary insurance policy. The court, examining the agreement between the parties, found that nothing in the contract language contained any express or implied requirement that the underlying policy be exhausted in order to trigger Lexington’s obligation to pay its share of covered damages. Following this decision, the parties entered into settlement discussions. On May 31, the parties stipulated to the dismissal of the action with prejudice. Lexington Insurance Co. v. Tokio Marine & Nichido Fire Insurance Co. Ltd., No. 11-cv-00391 (USDC S.D.N.Y. May 31, 2012).
- Checklist Checklist: Delivery and acceptance of goods in a business-to-business sale of goods contract (USA)
- How-to guide How-to guide: How to identify and prioritise competition law risk in your organisation (non-dominant and dominant organisations) (UK)
- Checklist Checklist: Trade association participation (USA)