Connect with us

Uncategorized

Advanced Reinsurance Contracts and Disputes Masterclass Training Course (London, United Kingdom – June 13, 2023)

Advanced Reinsurance Contracts and Disputes Masterclass Training Course (London, United Kingdom – June 13, 2023)
PR Newswire
DUBLIN, April 20, 2023

DUBLIN, April 20, 2023 /PRNewswire/ — The “Advanced Reinsurance Contracts and Disputes Masterclass …

Published

on

Advanced Reinsurance Contracts and Disputes Masterclass Training Course (London, United Kingdom - June 13, 2023)

PR Newswire

DUBLIN, April 20, 2023 /PRNewswire/ -- The "Advanced Reinsurance Contracts and Disputes Masterclass Training Course" training has been added to  ResearchAndMarkets.com's offering.


Reinsurance industry practices have changed in recent years, placing more and more emphasis and importance on reinsurance contract wordings. It is more apparent that a contract is only an advantage if it exactly reflects what the underwriter intended and the insured expected. If companies want to avoid lengthy and expensive disputes, they must develop clear and thorough reinsurance agreements and avoid frequent and small nuances that can land reinsurance companies in trouble.

This seminar focuses on the more advanced, up-to-the-minute issues.

Benefits of attending

  • Get up-to-date with the latest developments in applicable law
  • Understand the impact of the Insurance Act 2015 and the Enterprise Act 2016 on your policy wording
  • Hear about the role of notice, information and claims control/cooperation clauses
  • Grasp and learn to avoid the common mistakes in drafting watertight reinsurance clauses
  • Master the latest developments in property and casualty clauses
  • Gain knowledge of the regulatory considerations when launching a new product
  • Understand the implications of recent judgments involving follow clauses
  • Learn how to be prepared for reinsurance disputes and how to deal with them when they arise

Who Should Attend:

  • Wordings technicians
  • Reinsurance technicians
  • Claims managers and underwriters
  • Wordings specialists
  • In-house lawyers
  • Lawyers in private practice
  • Anyone who is involved in the drafting or implementation of reinsurance wordings or who deal with reinsurance disputes

Key Topics Covered:

Follow wordings - issues, options and effective drafting

  • Arbitration awards, and English/foreign judgments
  • Settlements - how to draft wide or narrow clauses
  • "Without prejudice" and "ex-gratia" settlements
  • Businesslike steps and the burden of proof
  • Dealing with commutations

The Insurance Act 2015 and the Enterprise Act 2016 - case update and how they impact your policy wording

  • The legal nature of warranties (sections 9 and 10)
  • The effect of Section 11
  • How to draft around section 11(3) - terms defining the risk
  • Fair Presentation - new rules and wording tweaks
  • Section 13A, damages for late payment of claims; key drafting issues for reinsurers
  • Contracting out and the transparency requirements

Notice, information and claims control/cooperation clauses

  • Purpose
  • Reporting and notice clauses - "immediate', "as soon as practicable" notice
  • Conditions precedent
  • Access to records clauses
  • Late notice issues
  • Confidentiality

Drafting watertight reinsurance clauses: some common mistakes

  • Full follow clause/back-to-back presumption
  • Avoid incorporate
  • Don't cut and paste
  • Check for internal consistency between clauses
  • Put all the clauses in the right places in the document
  • Use clear language
  • Make sure definitions are relevant to all uses
  • Don't use the same words in different senses
  • Don't rely on the courts to imply terms

Developments in property and casualty clauses

  • Wording issues for emerging and developing markets
  • Clauses broadening cedants' rights
  • Additional observations and developments

Aggregation

  • Drafting for the correct breadth of aggregating factor ("loss", "occurrence", "series", "event", "catastrophe", "originating cause")
  • Hours clauses
  • Considering drafting issues in the context of recent catastrophes including Covid-19
  • Practical tips

Regulatory considerations when launching a new product

  • Why is regulatory compliance important?
  • Why is regulatory risk higher for new products?
  • The impact of insurance regulation on the structure, content and sale of new products
  • How do you create a compliant MVP?
  • What are the risks of working with other business partners/distribution partners?

Being prepared for reinsurance disputes: Wordings and their role in dispute resolution

  • Governing law and jurisdiction
  • Arbitration
  • Mediation (and med/arb)
  • Selection of panel members
  • Disclosure and evidentiary matters
  • Settlement agreements and commutations (including IBNR)

Speakers:

Will Reddie
HFW

William Reddie, Partner, Holman Fenwick Willan LLP, advises on a range of corporate and regulatory matters, focussing on clients in the insurance sector. His experience includes M&A, joint ventures, (re)insurance arrangements, commutations and transactions specific to the Lloyd's market, and insurtech products. Will has provided regulatory advice on Part IV authorisation issues, distribution arrangements, passporting structures, intra-group arrangements and the use of appointed representatives. He has also advised several entities on the acquisition or disposal of run-off business by way of a loss portfolio reinsurance and subsequent Part VII transfer

Christopher Foster
Holman Fenwick Willan

Christopher Foster, Head of Holman Fenwick Willan's worldwide insurance group, is a solicitor advocate with over twenty-eight years' experience in contentious insurance and reinsurance matters, often with an international element, and commercial litigation generally. Christopher acts for insurers, reinsurers, and major insured entities and their captive insurers. His experience includes COVID-19, California wildfires; Greensill; the invasion of Kuwait; WorldCom; Exxon Valdez oil spill; Madoff; hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Juliette, Ivan, Wilma, Maria and Irma; the Hatfield rail crash; the Winterthur XL baseball arbitration; hip implants; the Lloyd's litigation; the alleged Algosaibi frauds; Australian bushfires; PPI; film finance (including tax schemes); abuse claims; the PA spiral; asbestos; pollution; the bankruptcy of Enron; pharmaceutical liabilities; 9/11; Venezuelan political risks; disruptions caused by volcanic ash; and Graff on its Bond Street robbery. Christopher is the author of the arbitration chapter in the Insurance Institute of London's book, Alternative Dispute Resolution in Practice, and a member of the Insurance Committee of the City of London Law Society.

Sherry Goodman-Smith
DAC Beechcroft

Sherry Goodman-Smith is a specialist in complex insurance and reinsurance policy coverage disputes. She joined DAC Beachcroft's Global Insurance practice as a partner, based in London, in 2021.

Sherry spent the previous eight years at Simmons & Simmons, most recently as Of Counsel. There she advised London market insurers and reinsurers on large-scale coverage issues, with a particular focus on product liability and recall, international casualty and complex property claims. She has also advised on coverage issues arising from more niche insurance policy wordings, including kidnap and ransom, intellectual property liability, and fine art claims.

Duncan Strachan
DAC Beachcroft

Duncan Strachan is a Partner at DAC Beachcroft LLP. He specialises in complex and international (re)insurance matters across multiple lines of business.  His current caseload advising on major energy losses in Ecuador, Peru and Colombia; monitoring US securities class action suits against non-US entities; and advising on exposure to climate change litigation.  Duncan's focus is on international disputes and policy coverage analysis, with particular expertise in Latin America and the Caribbean, due to his familiarity with the legal and political landscape across the region. Duncan is also fluent in Spanish and regularly presents to insurers and reinsurers across the world.

Ben Ogden
Ince & Co

Ben Ogden is a partner at Ince & Co. He acts for insurers, insureds and brokers in a variety of insurance disputes. He has significant expertise, gained over many years, of professional indemnity insurance, and political, trade and credit risk insurance. His professional indemnity work has focussed on lawyers, where his experience encompasses all aspects of legal practice; as well as insurance brokers, dealing with complex placements and coverage issues. He has regularly considered issues of dishonesty in the context of PI claims. He has also acted for (and against) other professions.

His political and trade credit risk work has included significant policy drafting as well as handling a range of disputes (for insurers and insureds) involving different subject matter - whether it be non-payment, asset deprivation, or quantification. The claims have arisen in different jurisdictions and have been varying values. Ben has acted in a variety of commercial disputes connected to the acquisition or operation of businesses. Notable sale and purchase disputes have arisen from the warranties given on the acquisition of a shipyard and the sale of a Lloyd's agency. He has acted in many cases alleging secret profits, most notably two long trials (and the subsequent appeals) in relation to commissions. The majority of Ben's work has been in Court and he has significant trial experience, but he has regularly used ADR as a means of settling disputes.

In addition to his practice, Ben lectures regularly on insurance law and about alternative dispute resolution, of which he has considerable experience representing clients.

Andrew Bandurka
Holman Fenwick Willan

Andrew Bandurka Arbitrator, Mediator and Consultant. Andrew has more than 30 years' experience in handling reinsurance disputes. He was a partner at leading international reinsurance firm, HFW and he retains a consultancy there. 

Andrew has handled many high profile reinsurance cases, including leading the successful teams in some of the most important  'market' test cases to reach the appellate Courts, such as the Kuwait invasion aggregation case (Scott-v-Copenhagen Re), the Exxon Valdez follow settlements case (King-v-Brandywine) and the 9/11 Twin Towers aggregation case (Heraldglen-v-AIOI). His other reported reinsurance cases include Home-v-Wurtembergische (reinsurance pool run-off) and Hassneh-v-Pan Atlantic (arbitrator qualifications). Andrew is a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, is on the ARIAS(UK) panel and the ICC panel of arbitrators and he is an accredited mediator.

Simon Cooper
Ince & Co

Simon Cooper is a Consultant at Ince & Co LLP. He has experience of advising clients in the London and international insurance and reinsurance markets and has extensive experience of acting in large scale disputes in the English Commercial Court and appellate Courts, in ad hoc arbitrations and in overseas jurisdictions. Many of these disputes have involved multiple parties and complex issues of fact and law. Simon also has comprehensive experience of mediation and other forms of Alternative Dispute Resolution. Simon's practice focuses on reinsurance, financial lines and professional indemnity business but has included most areas of non-marine business.

For more information about this training visit https://www.researchandmarkets.com/r/cstjrb

About ResearchAndMarkets.com
ResearchAndMarkets.com is the world's leading source for international market research reports and market data. We provide you with the latest data on international and regional markets, key industries, the top companies, new products and the latest trends.

Media Contact:

Research and Markets
Laura Wood, Senior Manager
press@researchandmarkets.com
 
For E.S.T Office Hours Call +1-917-300-0470
For U.S./CAN Toll Free Call +1-800-526-8630
For GMT Office Hours Call +353-1-416-8900
 
U.S. Fax: 646-607-1907
Fax (outside U.S.): +353-1-481-1716

Logo: https://mma.prnewswire.com/media/539438/Research_and_Markets_Logo.jpg

View original content:https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/advanced-reinsurance-contracts-and-disputes-masterclass-training-course-london-united-kingdom---june-13-2023-301803229.html

SOURCE Research and Markets

Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

February Employment Situation

By Paul Gomme and Peter Rupert The establishment data from the BLS showed a 275,000 increase in payroll employment for February, outpacing the 230,000…

Published

on

By Paul Gomme and Peter Rupert

The establishment data from the BLS showed a 275,000 increase in payroll employment for February, outpacing the 230,000 average over the previous 12 months. The payroll data for January and December were revised down by a total of 167,000. The private sector added 223,000 new jobs, the largest gain since May of last year.

Temporary help services employment continues a steep decline after a sharp post-pandemic rise.

Average hours of work increased from 34.2 to 34.3. The increase, along with the 223,000 private employment increase led to a hefty increase in total hours of 5.6% at an annualized rate, also the largest increase since May of last year.

The establishment report, once again, beat “expectations;” the WSJ survey of economists was 198,000. Other than the downward revisions, mentioned above, another bit of negative news was a smallish increase in wage growth, from $34.52 to $34.57.

The household survey shows that the labor force increased 150,000, a drop in employment of 184,000 and an increase in the number of unemployed persons of 334,000. The labor force participation rate held steady at 62.5, the employment to population ratio decreased from 60.2 to 60.1 and the unemployment rate increased from 3.66 to 3.86. Remember that the unemployment rate is the number of unemployed relative to the labor force (the number employed plus the number unemployed). Consequently, the unemployment rate can go up if the number of unemployed rises holding fixed the labor force, or if the labor force shrinks holding the number unemployed unchanged. An increase in the unemployment rate is not necessarily a bad thing: it may reflect a strong labor market drawing “marginally attached” individuals from outside the labor force. Indeed, there was a 96,000 decline in those workers.

Earlier in the week, the BLS announced JOLTS (Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey) data for January. There isn’t much to report here as the job openings changed little at 8.9 million, the number of hires and total separations were little changed at 5.7 million and 5.3 million, respectively.

As has been the case for the last couple of years, the number of job openings remains higher than the number of unemployed persons.

Also earlier in the week the BLS announced that productivity increased 3.2% in the 4th quarter with output rising 3.5% and hours of work rising 0.3%.

The bottom line is that the labor market continues its surprisingly (to some) strong performance, once again proving stronger than many had expected. This strength makes it difficult to justify any interest rate cuts soon, particularly given the recent inflation spike.

Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Mortgage rates fall as labor market normalizes

Jobless claims show an expanding economy. We will only be in a recession once jobless claims exceed 323,000 on a four-week moving average.

Published

on

Everyone was waiting to see if this week’s jobs report would send mortgage rates higher, which is what happened last month. Instead, the 10-year yield had a muted response after the headline number beat estimates, but we have negative job revisions from previous months. The Federal Reserve’s fear of wage growth spiraling out of control hasn’t materialized for over two years now and the unemployment rate ticked up to 3.9%. For now, we can say the labor market isn’t tight anymore, but it’s also not breaking.

The key labor data line in this expansion is the weekly jobless claims report. Jobless claims show an expanding economy that has not lost jobs yet. We will only be in a recession once jobless claims exceed 323,000 on a four-week moving average.

From the Fed: In the week ended March 2, initial claims for unemployment insurance benefits were flat, at 217,000. The four-week moving average declined slightly by 750, to 212,250


Below is an explanation of how we got here with the labor market, which all started during COVID-19.

1. I wrote the COVID-19 recovery model on April 7, 2020, and retired it on Dec. 9, 2020. By that time, the upfront recovery phase was done, and I needed to model out when we would get the jobs lost back.

2. Early in the labor market recovery, when we saw weaker job reports, I doubled and tripled down on my assertion that job openings would get to 10 million in this recovery. Job openings rose as high as to 12 million and are currently over 9 million. Even with the massive miss on a job report in May 2021, I didn’t waver.

Currently, the jobs openings, quit percentage and hires data are below pre-COVID-19 levels, which means the labor market isn’t as tight as it once was, and this is why the employment cost index has been slowing data to move along the quits percentage.  

2-US_Job_Quits_Rate-1-2

3. I wrote that we should get back all the jobs lost to COVID-19 by September of 2022. At the time this would be a speedy labor market recovery, and it happened on schedule, too

Total employment data

4. This is the key one for right now: If COVID-19 hadn’t happened, we would have between 157 million and 159 million jobs today, which would have been in line with the job growth rate in February 2020. Today, we are at 157,808,000. This is important because job growth should be cooling down now. We are more in line with where the labor market should be when averaging 140K-165K monthly. So for now, the fact that we aren’t trending between 140K-165K means we still have a bit more recovery kick left before we get down to those levels. 




From BLS: Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 275,000 in February, and the unemployment rate increased to 3.9 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Job gains occurred in health care, in government, in food services and drinking places, in social assistance, and in transportation and warehousing.

Here are the jobs that were created and lost in the previous month:

IMG_5092

In this jobs report, the unemployment rate for education levels looks like this:

  • Less than a high school diploma: 6.1%
  • High school graduate and no college: 4.2%
  • Some college or associate degree: 3.1%
  • Bachelor’s degree or higher: 2.2%
IMG_5093_320f22

Today’s report has continued the trend of the labor data beating my expectations, only because I am looking for the jobs data to slow down to a level of 140K-165K, which hasn’t happened yet. I wouldn’t categorize the labor market as being tight anymore because of the quits ratio and the hires data in the job openings report. This also shows itself in the employment cost index as well. These are key data lines for the Fed and the reason we are going to see three rate cuts this year.

Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Inside The Most Ridiculous Jobs Report In History: Record 1.2 Million Immigrant Jobs Added In One Month

Inside The Most Ridiculous Jobs Report In History: Record 1.2 Million Immigrant Jobs Added In One Month

Last month we though that the January…

Published

on

Inside The Most Ridiculous Jobs Report In History: Record 1.2 Million Immigrant Jobs Added In One Month

Last month we though that the January jobs report was the "most ridiculous in recent history" but, boy, were we wrong because this morning the Biden department of goalseeked propaganda (aka BLS) published the February jobs report, and holy crap was that something else. Even Goebbels would blush. 

What happened? Let's take a closer look.

On the surface, it was (almost) another blockbuster jobs report, certainly one which nobody expected, or rather just one bank out of 76 expected. Starting at the top, the BLS reported that in February the US unexpectedly added 275K jobs, with just one research analyst (from Dai-Ichi Research) expecting a higher number.

Some context: after last month's record 4-sigma beat, today's print was "only" 3 sigma higher than estimates. Needless to say, two multiple sigma beats in a row used to only happen in the USSR... and now in the US, apparently.

Before we go any further, a quick note on what last month we said was "the most ridiculous jobs report in recent history": it appears the BLS read our comments and decided to stop beclowing itself. It did that by slashing last month's ridiculous print by over a third, and revising what was originally reported as a massive 353K beat to just 229K,  a 124K revision, which was the biggest one-month negative revision in two years!

Of course, that does not mean that this month's jobs print won't be revised lower: it will be, and not just that month but every other month until the November election because that's the only tool left in the Biden admin's box: pretend the economic and jobs are strong, then revise them sharply lower the next month, something we pointed out first last summer and which has not failed to disappoint once.

To be fair, not every aspect of the jobs report was stellar (after all, the BLS had to give it some vague credibility). Take the unemployment rate, after flatlining between 3.4% and 3.8% for two years - and thus denying expectations from Sahm's Rule that a recession may have already started - in February the unemployment rate unexpectedly jumped to 3.9%, the highest since February 2022 (with Black unemployment spiking by 0.3% to 5.6%, an indicator which the Biden admin will quickly slam as widespread economic racism or something).

And then there were average hourly earnings, which after surging 0.6% MoM in January (since revised to 0.5%) and spooking markets that wage growth is so hot, the Fed will have no choice but to delay cuts, in February the number tumbled to just 0.1%, the lowest in two years...

... for one simple reason: last month's average wage surge had nothing to do with actual wages, and everything to do with the BLS estimate of hours worked (which is the denominator in the average wage calculation) which last month tumbled to just 34.1 (we were led to believe) the lowest since the covid pandemic...

... but has since been revised higher while the February print rose even more, to 34.3, hence why the latest average wage data was once again a product not of wages going up, but of how long Americans worked in any weekly period, in this case higher from 34.1 to 34.3, an increase which has a major impact on the average calculation.

While the above data points were examples of some latent weakness in the latest report, perhaps meant to give it a sheen of veracity, it was everything else in the report that was a problem starting with the BLS's latest choice of seasonal adjustments (after last month's wholesale revision), which have gone from merely laughable to full clownshow, as the following comparison between the monthly change in BLS and ADP payrolls shows. The trend is clear: the Biden admin numbers are now clearly rising even as the impartial ADP (which directly logs employment numbers at the company level and is far more accurate), shows an accelerating slowdown.

But it's more than just the Biden admin hanging its "success" on seasonal adjustments: when one digs deeper inside the jobs report, all sorts of ugly things emerge... such as the growing unprecedented divergence between the Establishment (payrolls) survey and much more accurate Household (actual employment) survey. To wit, while in January the BLS claims 275K payrolls were added, the Household survey found that the number of actually employed workers dropped for the third straight month (and 4 in the past 5), this time by 184K (from 161.152K to 160.968K).

This means that while the Payrolls series hits new all time highs every month since December 2020 (when according to the BLS the US had its last month of payrolls losses), the level of Employment has not budged in the past year. Worse, as shown in the chart below, such a gaping divergence has opened between the two series in the past 4 years, that the number of Employed workers would need to soar by 9 million (!) to catch up to what Payrolls claims is the employment situation.

There's more: shifting from a quantitative to a qualitative assessment, reveals just how ugly the composition of "new jobs" has been. Consider this: the BLS reports that in February 2024, the US had 132.9 million full-time jobs and 27.9 million part-time jobs. Well, that's great... until you look back one year and find that in February 2023 the US had 133.2 million full-time jobs, or more than it does one year later! And yes, all the job growth since then has been in part-time jobs, which have increased by 921K since February 2023 (from 27.020 million to 27.941 million).

Here is a summary of the labor composition in the past year: all the new jobs have been part-time jobs!

But wait there's even more, because now that the primary season is over and we enter the heart of election season and political talking points will be thrown around left and right, especially in the context of the immigration crisis created intentionally by the Biden administration which is hoping to import millions of new Democratic voters (maybe the US can hold the presidential election in Honduras or Guatemala, after all it is their citizens that will be illegally casting the key votes in November), what we find is that in February, the number of native-born workers tumbled again, sliding by a massive 560K to just 129.807 million. Add to this the December data, and we get a near-record 2.4 million plunge in native-born workers in just the past 3 months (only the covid crash was worse)!

The offset? A record 1.2 million foreign-born (read immigrants, both legal and illegal but mostly illegal) workers added in February!

Said otherwise, not only has all job creation in the past 6 years has been exclusively for foreign-born workers...

Source: St Louis Fed FRED Native Born and Foreign Born

... but there has been zero job-creation for native born workers since June 2018!

This is a huge issue - especially at a time of an illegal alien flood at the southwest border...

... and is about to become a huge political scandal, because once the inevitable recession finally hits, there will be millions of furious unemployed Americans demanding a more accurate explanation for what happened - i.e., the illegal immigration floodgates that were opened by the Biden admin.

Which is also why Biden's handlers will do everything in their power to insure there is no official recession before November... and why after the election is over, all economic hell will finally break loose. Until then, however, expect the jobs numbers to get even more ridiculous.

Tyler Durden Fri, 03/08/2024 - 13:30

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending