Legal Opinion
Trustmark Insurance v. John Hancock Life Insurance
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Decided January 31, 2011No. 09-3682PublishedCited by 31 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge.
Two insurance companies agreed in 1997 that Trustmark would reinsure some risks underwritten by John Hancock. The details of the parties’ multiple contracts are unimportant for our purposes. It is enough to say that the insurers disagree about the meaning of “London Market Retrocessional Excess of Loss business”, which Trustmark need not reinsure. The parties submitted their dispute to arbitration under the contracts’ broad arbitration clauses. In March 2004 a tripartite panel (one arbitrator selected by each side, and these two selecting a third, called the umpire)…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Liteky v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- At&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications WorkersSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2002
- Federal Trade Commission v. Standard Oil Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co., Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2009
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by31 opinions
- Scandinavian Reinsurance Co. v. Saint Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2012
- Unite Here Local 1 v. Hyatt CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2017
- Driftless Area Land Conservanc v. Rebecca ValcqCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2021
- Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Inc. v. BCS InsuranceCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2011
- Savers Property & Casualty Insurance v. National Union Fire InsuranceCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2014
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.