May 23, 2012

District Court Refused to Enforce a Default Judgment Against Romanian Bank

In this action, General Star and Administratia, a previously state-owned insurance company, were parties to a series of reinsurance contracts from 1974 to 1981. In 1991, the communist government in Romania fell and a new capitalistic regime assumed power. In the process, the state-owned insurance company was dissolved and was succeeded, in part, by various entities. After the money owed to General Star was not paid, General Star sued the entities that assumed the operations of the state run insurance company. When the parties did not respond to the lawsuit, General Star applied for and received a default judgment against the entities.

Administratia moved to vacate the default judgment on the grounds of lack of subject matter jurisdiction together with insufficient service of process. The court in that action vacated the judgment against two of the entities but not Administratia. Soon thereafter, General Star began post-judgment collection efforts that included seizing assets from various entities including the Romanian Government and Administratia. Despite these efforts, General Star was still unable to collect the proceeds.

In one of its final attempts, General Star submitted a writ of execution and successor-liability claims in New York against a Romanian bank on the basis it was an alter ego of the Romanian government at the time the contracts were issued. The District Court refused to allow a judgment against the Romanian Bank on the grounds that General Star failed to produce sufficient facts to demonstrate an alter-ego relationship at the time the contracts were executed.

IMPACT (REINSURANCE): This is a unique set of circumstances arising from the fall of the communist regime in that the case addressed the issue of determining an insurance carrier’s obligations when it was dissolved because of political reasons. Voluntarily dissolving an reinsurer posed several interesting legal issues. Traditionally, a reinsurer usually becomes insolvent through normal business practices and underlying insurers and cedents generally have the necessary safeguards to address such a situation within the arbitration agreement.

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK   GENERAL STAR V. ADMINISTRATIA ASIGURARILOR  (CIVIL ACTION NO. 18-MS 302 MAY 12, 2010)

All content © 2012 Goldberg Segalla LLP

About the Author

Listed in Business First's Who's Who in Law, named to New York Super Lawyers, and AV rated by Martindale Hubbell, Daniel W Gerber is a partner of the firm and maintains a national practice in commercial litigation with a focus on complex insurance coverage disputes and analysis. He chairs Goldberg Segalla's Life, Health, Disability and ERISA practice group and co-chairs the firm's Global Insurance Services practice group. Mr. Gerber is admitted to the United States Supreme Court, as well as all Federal and State courts in New York. He argues regularly in...

716-566-5425

About the Author

Jeffrey L. Kingsley is a partner and experienced member of Goldberg Segalla LLP's Global Insurance Services Practice Group.  He maintains an international practice with a focus on complex insurance and reinsurance coverage disputes as well as extra-contractual liability arbitration and litigation.  He has written several articles on recent reinsurance trends including the rise of original policyholder and the expanding power of arbitrators under the Federal Arbitration Act.  He is the co-editor of Goldberg Segalla's Reinsurance Review,...

716-566-5434

Contributors

Thomas F. Segalla, is the co-author of the renowned insurance law treatise Couch on Insurance 3d and is one of the founding partners of the firm.  Mr. Segalla is a nationally recognized reinsurance and insurance expert who has been retained by numerous insurance carriers and policyholders.  His active practice focuses on the defense and insurance coverage aspects of matters involving bad faith; construction site personal injury accidents (Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1) and 241(6)); and toxic tort and environmental issues. As a member of the...

716-566-5480

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.