[Printable Version]
Executive Summary
Welcome to the First Edition of Saul Ewing’s Reinsurance Insights. This update summarizes select court decisions, regulatory developments, industry forecasts, and emerging topics, with an emphasis on issues likely to impact claims handling, dispute strategy, and compliance. It is designed as a practical, counsel-focused digest: what changed, what it means, and what to do next.
In this edition, we address:
- Grounds for vacating an arbitration award under the Federal Arbitration Act;
- Federal jurisdiction for confirming or vacating an arbitration award;
- Maintaining confidentiality when seeking court intervention associated with an arbitration;
- Whether a reinsurer to a self-insured employer is entitled to reimbursement from the Massachusetts’
Workers’ Compensation Trust Fund for any cost of living adjustments that it paid to the employer’s injured
worker; - Late notice; and
- Contribution when an insolvent insurer can only pay a portion of an allowed claim.
This update is not exhaustive. We selected decisions and regulatory items based on relevance, novelty, practical impact, and significance. Summaries are for informational purposes and should be evaluated in light of specific contract language and facts.
In This Issue
Trump Administration Shows Interest in Asset-Intensive Reinsurance
In a development that may have implications for asset-intensive reinsurance (“AIR”), there was a meeting on May 7, 2026 between Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent and a delegation of State insurance commissioners led by NAIC President-Elect Elizabeth Dwyer of Rhode Island to “share perspectives on the intersection of private credit and insurance.” Although their regulatory focuses are not always the same, Secretary Bessent emphasized the need for fit-for-purpose regulation that encourages innovation while appropriately managing risk and said, “Like all of you, my team at Treasury is monitoring the transformation of the U.S. life insurance industry and trends in private credit. I look forward to our continued engagement as we monitor the developments in both markets.”
Employer’s Reinsurance Corp. v. Workers’ Compensation Trust Fund
This case addresses whether a reinsurer to a self-insured employer is entitled to reimbursement from the Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Trust Fund (“Fund”) for any cost-of-living adjustments (“COLA”) that it paid to the employer’s injured worker after the employer files for bankruptcy. The Appellate Court overturned an administrative board’s decision, and determined that the reinsurer was entitled to reimbursement for COLA payments it made to the employer’s injured worker.
Hamilton Managing Agency Limited v. ICI Mutual Insurance Company
This case analyzes whether to vacate an arbitration award under three different bases: (1) evident partiality, (2) exceeded the arbitrator’s powers, and (3) manifest disregard of the law. The court found that none of those bases existed and confirmed the arbitration award.
Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties
After Badgerow v. Walters, the Second, Third, and Seventh Circuits found that its holding was limited to freestanding motions to confirm or vacate an arbitration award under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., without a pre-existing federal lawsuit, whereas the Fourth Circuit found that it applied to all motions to confirm or vacate. The Supreme Court resolved that split in Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties.
The Supreme Court held that a federal court has jurisdiction when the claims that are the subject of the arbitration award were previously stayed by that court under FAA § 3. The Court stated: “Because a federal court in this scenario has jurisdiction over the original claims and does not lose that jurisdiction while the case is stayed pending arbitration, it retains jurisdiction to determine whether the arbitral award resolving those claims is valid and should be confirmed.” The Court noted that “unlike with the freestanding applications . . ., assessing jurisdiction over a § 9 or § 10 motion in a case originally filed in federal court does not require ‘looking through’ the filed action. Instead, the court may assess its jurisdiction by looking at the suit that is already before it.”
In the Matter of the Liquidation of Home Insurance Company
The New Hampshire Supreme Court held that in an insurer liquidation, a co-insurer’s contribution rights are determined by the insolvent insurer’s established liability to the insured (the Settlement), not by the reduced amount actually paid from the estate (the Distribution). The court further ruled that the Insurers Rehabilitation and Liquidation Act provides a comprehensive scheme that overrides common-law contribution and setoff, preventing parties like Century from using setoff to bypass the statute’s priority-of-payments framework.
Pohjola Insurance Ltd. v. Continental Insurance Company
In this case, the Illinois Appellate Division reversed the trial court’s summary judgment order, and determined there were issues of fact as to whether an insurer gave late notice to its reinsurer under New York law.
Tyson International Company, Limited v. Partner Reinsurance Europe SE
This lawsuit concerned whether to confirm or vacate an arbitration award. In connection therewith, the parties filed four motions to seal, which sought to seal the petition to vacate a portion of the arbitration award, three memoranda of law, and certain exhibits. According to the Court, “the Parties’ exhibits fall into three main categories: (1) the contracts/policies at issue in the underlying dispute, (2) transcripts and opinions from the arbitration proceedings, and (3) internal correspondence related to the dispute.” The Court concluded that “the contracts/policies at issue in the underlying dispute” could remain under seal, as well as the petition and memoranda of law. However, the parties were to redact any confidential commercial information contained in the other exhibits.
Read the Full Report.
