730. The Court determines that the movants are making a factual challenge to Carlson’s Complaint; therefore, the Court will consider matters outside the pleadings, Carlson does not benefit from the safeguards of 12(b)(6), and Carlson has the burden of proving that this Court has jurisdiction over its claims against the movants. B. Reinsurers are not Liable to the Insured Minnesota law concerning reinsurance is clear. A reinsurance contract is a contract of indemnity between the reinsurer and the insurer—it operates solely for the benefit of the insurer. Schunk v. Hotchkiss, 231 Minn. 219, 224, 43 N.W.2d 104, 108 (1950). “There is no privity of contract between the insured and the insurer’s reinsurer.” Id.; see also Barnes v. Hekla Fire Ins. Co., 56 Minn. 38, 40, 57 N.W. 314, 314 (1893) (<HOLDING>). “In such a contract the policy holders have
holding that reinsurance is a mere contract of indemnity holding that a party that settled but failed to immediately notify a third party of indemnity claims did not waive indemnity claims holding that indemnity language on front of onepage contract was conspicuous holding that an indemnity provision need not be valid and enforceable to trigger obligations under the contract so long as the parties agreed to indemnity holding that an indemnitee must be proven to be free of negligence in order to receive indemnity either under a general indemnity agreement or under implied indemnity