Delaware Maryland Massachusetts New Jersey New York Pennsylvania Washington, DC www.saul.com 1.800.355.7777
JANUARY 2013
Contacts:
Amy S. Kline
215.972.8567
akline@saul.com
Sean T. O'Neill
215.972.7159
soneill@saul.com
Braden A. Borger
215.972.7176
bborger@saul.com
Matthew J. Smith
215.972.7535
msmith@saul.com
Brian P. Simons
215.972.7194
bsimons@saul.com
Patrick F. Nugent
215.972.7134
pnugent@saul.com
In This Issue
Federal Court in Wisconsin Holds That It Lacks Jurisdiction to Address Disqualification of
Counsel in Arbitration
The United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin declined to determine whether an insurer was
prohibited from using a certain law firm in arbitration proceedings on the basis of a conflict of interest because the
party that removed the case to federal court failed to demonstrate the requirements of diversity jurisdiction were sat-
isfied—namely, that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.
National Cas. Co. v. Utica Mut. Ins. Co.,
No. 12–
cv–657–bbc, 2012 WL 6190084 (W.D. Wis. Dec. 12, 2012).
PAGE 2
New York District Court Refuses to Quash Subpoenas Served on Non-Party Reinsurers but
Orders Party Issuing Subpoenas to Pay Expenses of Responding
On November 5, 2012, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York refused to quash sub-
poenas served on two non-party reinsurers seeking information related to life insurance policies; however, the court
did order the issuing party to pay the reinsurers’ costs of responding to the subpoenas.
U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. PHL
Variable Ins. Co.
, No. 12 Civ. 6811(CM)(JCF), 2012 WL 5395249 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 5, 2012).
PAGE 3
2012 Redux Year in Review
The
Reinsurance Redux
debuted in March 2011 as a monthly publication of the Insurance Practice.
We include a retrospective review of the top ten categories of cases featured in the 2012 issues of the
Reinsurance
Redux.
PAGE 4
Redux
Reinsurance
Insurance
Practice
The redux on developments in the law of reinsurance
