Reinsurance Broker Does Not Owe Fiduciary Duty to Reinsured Company

Workmen’s Auto Ins. Co. v. Guy Carpenter & Co., Inc. (Cal. Ct. App. May 4, 2011)

An appellate court in California held last week that an insurance broker does not owe a fiduciary duty to its client. Rather, “an insurance broker’s duties are defined by negligence law, not fiduciary law, and the agency of a broker must be viewed only through the lens of insurance law, which is a constellation of rules and policies all its own.” The court acknowledged the inherent conflict between insurance

Continue Reading

Supreme Court Concluded that FAA Does Not Permit Class Arbitration

AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, (U.S. Supreme Court, April 27, 2011)

Although arbitration provisions have generally been upheld by the courts, certain clauses have been closely scrutinized.  One such clause is a class-action waiver which requires arbitrations to be conducted on an individual basis.  The Supreme Court has now addressed the propriety of such clauses in arbitration provisions and whether state law can void the clause.

In AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, customers brought a putative class action suit against a cellular telephone

Continue Reading

Cases for Life, Health, Disability and ERISA Quarterly Spring 2011 Edition

Cases provided courtesy of Lexis.

Bicknell v. Lockheed Martin Group Benefits Plan

Blue Shield of California Life & Health Insurance Company v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles

Crosby v. Louisiana Health Serv. & Indem. Co.

Dormer v. Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co.

Fier v. Unum Life Insurance Company

Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company v. Cain

Lin v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company

Muniz v. Amec Constr. Mgmt

Protective Life Insurance Company v. Hansen

Sadel v. Berkshire Life Ins. Co.

Union Security Insurance Company v.

Continue Reading

District Court Denies Motion For Reconsideration Of Prior Ruling Against Reinsurance Policyholder Dismissing Case For Lack Of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Health Facilities of California Mut. Ins. Co., Inc. v. British American Ins. Grp., Ltd. et.al.(United States District Court, Central District of California, April 5, 2011)

This reinsurance dispute arises from claims involving the return of excess deposits and premiums from certain reinsurance contracts entered into by plaintiff, Health Facilities of California (HFC), an incorporated risk retention group.  Defendants, British American Insurance Group (BAIG) and Peter Myrtle, are Louisiana citizens acting as reinsurance intermediaries transmitting premiums payments, payments of return premium and collecting payments. 

HFC

Continue Reading

District Court Dismisses Cases Against Reinsurance Policyholder Sua Sponte For Lack Of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Health Facilities of California Mut. Ins. Co., Inc. v. British American Ins. Grp., Ltd. et.al.(United States District Court, Central District of California, January 11, 2011)

This reinsurance dispute arises from claims involving the return of excess deposits and premiums from certain reinsurance contracts entered into by plaintiff, Health Facilities of California (HFC), an incorporated risk retention group.  Defendants, British American Insurance Group (BAIG) and Peter Myrtle, are Louisiana citizens acting as reinsurance intermediaries transmitting premiums payments, payments of return premium and collecting payments. 

HFC

Continue Reading

Cases for the September 3, 2010 Edition of CaseWatch: Insurance

ADAM v KESSEL

Adam v. Stonebridge Life Insurance Company

Allstate Insurance Company v. Ligouri

Black v. Richards

Brown_v_Interstate

California Dairies Inc. v. RSUI Indemnity Co.

Cargill, Inc. v. Ace American Ins. Co.

Continental Casualty Co. v. City of Jacksonville

Elmer v. Infinity Ins. Co.

Essex Ins. Co. v. Paric Corp.

Estate of Bradley v. Royal Surplus Lines Ins. Co.

Estate of Dutkiewicz v. Benchmark Ins. Co.

Estate of Heintzelman v. Air Experts, Inc.

Flomerfelt v. Cardiello

Great American Insurance Company v. RLI Insurance Co.

Henry

Continue Reading

Professional Relationship Between Arbitrator’s Wife and Defense Counsel Not Ground to Vacate Arbitration Award

Johnson v. Gruma Corp.

(9th Cir. (Cal.) Aug. 13, 2010)

 

The Ninth Circuit recently refused to vacate an arbitration award on the ground that the arbitrator failed to disclose his wife’s former professional relationship with the law firm ultimately retained to represent the defendant in the arbitration.

 

The plaintiff filed suit against Gruma Corporation in 2001, alleging that Gruma misrepresented to the plaintiff and other class members that they were independent contractors when they were, in fact, Gruma employees. The complaint contained

Continue Reading

Relying on the Supreme Court’s holding in Stolt-Nielsen, Second Circuit Determines that Class Arbitration Clause is Unconscionable

Fensterstock v. Education Finance Partners, et al.

(2nd Cir. (N.Y.) July 12, 2010)

 

Plaintiff commenced this action asserting state law claims on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, alleging that defendants engaged in fraudulent and deceptive practices in connection with the solicitation, consolidation, and servicing of student loans.  Plaintiff alleged that defendants intentionally failed to disclose to borrowers that unless their payments were received on the precise day of the month on which they were due, defendants would alter the Amortization

Continue Reading

Court Dismisses Insurer’s CERCLA’s Cost Recovery Subrogation Claims

Chubb Custom Ins. Co. v. Space Systems/Loral, Inc. et. al. (United States District Court, Northern District of California, July 13, 2010)

This CERCLA cost recovery action was initiated by the insurer seeking recovery of costs incurred on behalf of one of its insured. Chubb alleged that defendants were jointly and severally liable for clean-up costs incurred in response to releases of hazardous substances at location owned by Chubb’s insured. Specifically, the action involved five properties in Palo Alto, California. Chubb alleged that the site is …

Continue Reading