Barry Nilsson | Australia | 3 May 2017
On 23 June 2003 MetLife and RGA entered into a reinsurance treaty whereby RGA agreed to reinsure the liabilities MetLife had under group life…
Dentons | European Union, USA | 22 Nov 2016
Apart from a fundamental disagreement between the parties as to whether the Affordable Care Act ("ACA") should be repealed and replaced, insurance…
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP | USA | 25 Jan 2015
There have been several new class actions filed recently challenging "shadow insurance" transactions between life insurance companies and their…
Norton Rose Fulbright | Australia | 1 Jul 2010
Before 1993, the question of whether a creditor of a corporation being wound up had received an unfair preference from that corporation was determined under section 122 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth).
Locke Lord LLP | Brazil, Chile, Mexico, etc. | 8 Jul 2009
Brazilian insurance and reinsurance regulator SUSEP recently issued guidance stating that it does not consider valid reinsurance issued to group health organizations, medical cooperatives and autogestion organizations.
Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP | USA | 31 Jan 2008
In a dispute between a cedent and its reinsurers, the Connecticut Supreme Court has reversed summary judgment in favor of the reinsurers, holding that fact issues exist as to whether a “common cause” provision in excess of loss treaties permit aggregation of asbestos-related losses for the purpose of reinsurance payment.
Locke Lord LLP | USA | 16 Jan 2008
In Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co, et al. v. Ace American Reinsurance Co., et al., No. 17625 (Sup. Ct. Conn. Dec. 25, 2007), the Connecticut Supreme Court found a “common cause” provision in a reinsurance treaty to be ambiguous for purposes of whether multiple asbestos claims could be aggregated as a single occurrence, reversing the lower court's decision granting summary judgment to the......