Reinsurance disputes require more than legal skill. They require credibility in a sophisticated market, command of industry custom and practice, and judgment about when traditional approaches serve the client and when a dispute calls for something different. Cedents and reinsurers in the United States, Bermuda, Canada, Europe, and Asia have turned to BatesCarey for more than a quarter century because the firm understands both the law and the business relationships that shape reinsurance disputes.
BatesCarey represents cedents and reinsurers across the full spectrum of reinsurance matters, from long-established coverage issues to disputes of first impression. The firm handles matters involving follow-the-fortunes, follow-the-settlements, aggregation, multi-year certificates, allocation, expenses in addition to limits, reinsurer bad faith, cut-through issues, captive issues, declaratory judgment costs, asbestos and long-tail liabilities, claims-made reinsurance, facultative certificates, treaty disputes, and complex billing issues.
Reinsurance disputes often unfold in a market where today’s adversaries may be tomorrow’s business partners. BatesCarey understands that dynamic. The firm protects the client’s litigation and arbitration position while remaining attentive to the commercial relationships, market reputation, and future dealings that may exist alongside the dispute. That judgment allows clients to pursue the right outcome without unnecessary damage to the relationships that matter to their business.
BatesCarey approaches each matter with the level of force the dispute requires. Some matters call for efficient negotiation, early resolution, or a disciplined presentation to a panel. Others require aggressive arbitration, litigation, or appellate strategy. The firm knows how to evaluate the record, frame the issues, present complex reinsurance concepts clearly, and advocate in a way that resonates with experienced industry decision-makers.
Reinsurance arbitrations are decided by professionals who know the market, the history of the doctrines at issue, and the lawyers appearing before them. BatesCarey has earned credibility in that community through decades of advocacy, arbitrator training, industry engagement, and repeated work in high-stakes disputes. In a practice area where judgment and reputation can influence how arguments are received, that standing gives clients a meaningful advantage.
Representative Cases
- Successful arbitration of a reinsurer’s liability to be limited only to claims first made in claims-made policy periods.
- Successful arbitration of a reinsurer, showing they were not liable for pre-judgment interest in excess of the limits of the reinsurance certificate.
- Allstate Insurance Co. v. Amerisure Mutual Ins. Co., 1:19-cv-04341 (N.D. Il. 2020), EFC1-8. Secured an arbitration panel ruling in the reinsurers’ favor that the cedent could not bill expenses in addition to limits.
- Successful arbitration ruling holding that the reinsurers were not liable for any portion of cedent’s billing based on aggregation of asbestos bodily injury losses.
- Pacific Employers Insurance Co. v. GLOBAL Reinsurance Corp. of America, 2010 WL 1659760 (E.D. Pa. April 23, 2010), reconsideration denied, 2010 WL 2376131. Secured judgment on the pleadings for the reinsurer, holding that the follow the fortunes doctrine did not require the reinsurer to pay expenses in addition to the limits of liability on the facultative certificates.
- Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. v. Gerling Global Reinsurance Corp. of America, 419 F.3d 181 (2d Cir. 2005); Successfully argued that the cedent’s post-settlement allocation of loss is controlled by the follow the fortunes doctrine.
- Employers Insurance Co. of Wausau v. American Re-Insurance Co., 256 F. Supp. 923 (W.D. Wis. 2003); Successfully argued that the cedent’s declaratory judgment costs are covered by facultative reinsurance certificates.
- Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, 760 N.E.2d 319 (N.Y. 2001); Amicus brief for Reinsurance Association of America, in which the court held that the follow the fortunes doctrine does not apply to the interpretation of the reinsurance contract.
