John C. Lenzen, FCIArb is an international arbitrator, mediator accredited by the Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution (CEDR), and dispute-resolution specialist. For twenty-five years, he served the insurance industry as outside counsel and in a variety of senior Legal and Claims roles, principally based in Bermuda. These included General Counsel to a number of insurance and reinsurance companies, General Counsel to and Head of Claims for Chubb (previously ACE) Bermuda, and both Worldwide Head of Litigation and Chief Litigation Counsel, Global Claims to the ACE and Chubb Groups – positions he held consecutively for fifteen years.

Mr. Lenzen has fairly assessed, determined, and resolved countless high-severity claims under commercial policies involving excess liability (with a particularly heavy emphasis on the Bermuda Form), financial lines, property, political risk, reinsurance and retrocessions, and eleven-figure underlying losses spanning the globe.

He has had direct responsibility for the hands-on management of many international and multi-jurisdictional arbitrations in England, Bermuda, and the United States, at least twenty of which went to an Award.

Mr. Lenzen also has extensive experience personally resolving many complex, nine-figure disputes through mediation and principal-to-principal discussions, and successfully employing creative negotiating strategies for challenging multi-party disputes implicating up to ten figures and involving numerous counsel and perspectives, and dozens of parties.

With this background, a large part of his career has been devoted to counselling executives, underwriters, and claims professionals on best practices, likely outcomes, and unconventional approaches to achieve exceptional resolutions.

Most Recent Representative Matters

• US$100 million Bermuda Form dispute involving defective radiant-heating hose installed in hundreds of expensive homes (London seat).
• US$50 million excess Property dispute involving a “big box store” sinking into the landfill it was built upon (London seat).
• US$100 million Bermuda Form dispute involving a first-of-its-kind birth-control device (Bermuda seat).
• US$115 million Retrocessional dispute involving three parties to a joint, international underwriting venture (London seat).
• US$390 million bespoke residual-value Reinsurance and Retrocessional dispute involving three parties and a massive portfolio of leased automobiles (ad hoc after the fact, New York seat).
• US$35 million excess Property dispute involving Y2K remediation costs (London seat).
• US$100 million Bermuda Form dispute involving defective synthetic siding installed on hundreds of homes (London seat).
• US$25 million Side-A D&O dispute involving a “black hat” CEO’s breach of an underwriting warranty and alleged fraud (London seat).
• US$100 million Bermuda Form dispute involving claims against a hospital for clinically unnecessary cardiac-bypass surgeries resulting in hundreds of deaths and allegations of fraud (London seat).
• US$50 million Reinsurance dispute arising out of an underlying settlement of aerospace exposures (London seat).
• US$25 million ABC D&O dispute over the reasonableness of an underlying settlement (London seat).
• US$100 million Bermuda Form dispute involving certain settlements of liabilities arising from a train derailment and resulting chemical release (London seat).
• US$20 million Side-A D&O dispute involving the settlement of alleged insider trading liabilities (London seat).
• US$150 million Bermuda Form dispute involving massive liabilities arising from a failed impoundment (London seat).
• US$50 million ABC D&O dispute over coverage for an underlying settlement (London seat).
• US$100 million Bermuda Form dispute involving injuries allegedly arising from an anti-psychotic pharmaceutical (parties agreed to litigate publicly in the English Commercial Courts – AstraZeneca v XL & ACE).
• US$100 million Bermuda Form dispute involving an allegedly defective diabetes pharmaceutical and an unusual underwriting endorsement (London seat).
• US$5 million dispute under a bespoke patent-infringement contract (London seat).
• US$100 million Bermuda Form dispute involving the settlement of alleged cementing liabilities arising out of the DEEPWATER HORIZON disaster (London seat – see Halliburton v Chubb).
• US$100 million Bermuda Form dispute involving the settlement of alleged operating liabilities arising out of the DEEPWATER HORIZON disaster (London seat – Ibid.).
• US$125 million Bermuda Form dispute under two separate policies involving allegedly defective masks and respirators (both Bermuda and London seats).
• US$200 million Bermuda Form dispute involving allegedly defective automotive safety restraints and allegations of bad faith (Bermuda seat).