Following The Money To Resolve Policy Disputes

This case is notable because the court examined premium flow to resolve a claimed ambiguity in policy language.

August 20, 2012

Law360, New York (August 20, 2012, 1:20 PM ET) -- The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit supported an interpretation of arguably ambiguous policy language by considering whether that interpretation made “economic sense.” OneBeacon America Insurance Co. v. Commercial Union Assurance Co. of Canada, No. 11-2072, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 14205, 1st Cir. (July 11, 2012).

The disputed policy language concerned whether the direct insurer was reinsured. For the policy years in dispute, extrinsic evidence showed that the direct insurer retained all of the direct premiums and ceded none. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit rejected arguments from the direct insurer that a claimed policy ambiguity precluded summary judgment.

All Content © 2003-2012, Portfolio Media, Inc.

The articles on our website include some of the publications and papers authored by our attorneys, both before and after they joined our firm. The content of these articles should not be taken as legal advice. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or official position of Robins Kaplan LLP.


Related Publications

January 2024
Crack the Code: Evaluating Cyber Claim Exposure
Taylore Karpa Schollard - The Robins Kaplan Insurance Insight
January 2024
Don’t Shoot The Messenger
Michele Detherage - The Robins Kaplan Insurance Insight
January 2024
The Weight of Words
Melissa M. D’Alelio - The Robins Kaplan Insurance Insight
June 2023
Attorney Spotlight: Partner Christina M. Lincoln
Lauren Birkenstock - The Robins Kaplan Insurance Insight
Back to Top