Introduction
I am very pleased that Phil Loree Jr. asked me to guest blog for the Loree Reinsurance and Arbitration Law Forum. I have known Phil for quite some time and have worked with him on various matters over the years. Phil suggested that I write something about my experiences mediating reinsurance disputes. This guest post is a revised version of an article I published in the September 2006 edition of JTW News, a popular, U.K.-based reinsurance trade publication.
As the aggravation, expense and amount of time required to arbitrate or litigate escalate, parties to reinsurance disputes are beginning to opt either by contract or ad hoc agreement to mediate reinsurance disputes. For them, depending upon the case, less is more; that is, compared to arbitration or litigation, mediation is a less aggressive, less costly, less damaging and less divisive alternative to tip the balance of power and opportunity in both parties’ favor. A careful, experienced and patient mediator views disputes between parties, not as a battle, but as an opportunity to empower them to structure a resolution that best meets their respective short and long term needs.
Despite this trend, many still claim mediation is unnecessary, expensive and unproductive — complaints based mostly upon its non-binding nature and prior “bad” experiences with ineffective mediators. From my discussions with many satisfied client and lawyer participants and my own work mediating cases, I have found that parties and their counsel can and do benefit in many ways — even if no settlement immediately results — from mediating their reinsurance disputes before an effective mediator. Continue Reading »
