Pa.R.A.P. 3781(a). After the Liquidator issued a notice of determination (NOD) that allowed the claim at priority level (e) for benefits paid under a reinsurance policy, and disallowed the claim for post-judgment interest, AIGA filed an objection in accordance with Pa.R.A.P. 3781(c). AIGA asserted that the entire amount, including the post judgment interest, should be allowed and assigned priority level (b). This Court assigned a referee, who opined that, in Pennsylvania, the characterization of the Reliance policy as either direct insurance or reinsurance is governed by the recent decision in CSAC Excess Insurance Authority v. Reliance Insurance Co., (Pa.Cmwlth., No. 1 REL 2007, filed November 8, 2012) (single judge opinion), aff'd, 621 Pa. 424, 78 A.3d 1058 (2013) (per curiam order) (<HOLDING>). The referee rejected as waived AIGA’s
holding a prior case was not precedent on an issue when the issue was not contested holding that issue in motion for rehearing is waived if original brief is not sufficient to acquaint the court with the issue and does not present an argument that would allow the court to decide the issue holding that a challenge to the weight of the evidence is waived for failure to present the issue first to the trial court holding that a policy nearly identical to that at issue in the present case was reinsurance holding that claim preclusion did not apply even though the legal theory at issue in that case was addressed in a previous case because the case at issue was based on a different set of operative facts