Reinsurance Focus

In a row between Granite State Insurance Company (“Granite”) and R & Q Reinsurance Company (“R & Q”), a New York trial court denied R & Q’s attempt to (1) vacate a prior court order, (2) appoint a special referee, and (3) dismiss counts in the complaint.

By way of history, the court previously found that certain discovery documents were protected under attorney-client privilege. Looking for reconsideration of this order, the court construed R & Q’s motion to vacate as a motion to renew and/or reargue. The court denied R & Q’s motion to renew as it failed to present a change in law or present new facts that would necessitate an alteration of the prior discovery order. The court also denied R& Q’s motion to reargue finding the “common interest” exception to attorney-client privilege inapplicable between an insurer and reinsurer. Without a relevant exception, the court held that R & Q “failed to demonstrate that [the court] overlooked or misapprehended the relevant facts.”

The court also denied R & Q’s attempt to appoint a special referee because an appointment would only extend an already prolonged discovery process without “special circumstances.” Finally, the court noted that Granite and R & Q engaged in a considerable “meet and confer” process in an effort to narrow the scope of discovery, and thus instead of dismissing claims for which discovery had not yet been provided, the court directed R & Q to re-serve its discovery requests directed to those claims, as appropriately revised based on the parties’ “meet and confer” process.

Granite State Ins. Co. v. R & Q Reinsurance Co., No. 654494/2013 (Sup. Ct. July 22, 2015)

This post written by Matthew Burrows, a law clerk at Carlton Fields Jorden Burt in Washington, DC.

See our disclaimer.

A district court in Kansas denied as moot defendant Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company’s motion to review a magistrate’s order granting plaintiff Great Plains Ventures, Inc.’s motion to compel reinsurance, reserves, and claims-related materials. The magistrate judge ruled in January that Liberty Mutual failed to establish why documents Great Plains had requested in a coverage dispute were irrelevant or privileged. Thus, the magistrate judge granted Great Plains’ motion to compel. Soon thereafter, Liberty Mutual requested that the magistrate judge stay his order in anticipation of its objection to the discovery order and its motion to review the order to compel. While the motion to review was pending, the magistrate judge denied the motion to stay and ordered Liberty Mutual to produce the documents. Liberty Mutual complied, and because it did so, the court ruled that its request for review was moot. Great Plains Ventures, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co., No. 6:14-cv-01136 (USDC D. Kan. May 1, 2015).

This post written by Whitney Fore, a law clerk at Carlton Fields Jorden Burt in Washington, DC.

See our disclaimer.

Utica Mutual Insurance Company (“Utica”) sued R&Q Reinsurance Company (“R&Q) in New York federal court for payment under reinsurance certificates R&Q issued to Utica covering umbrella policies Utica issued to its insured, Goulds Pumps, Inc. (“Goulds”) from 1979 to 1981. Some of the policies Utica issued to Goulds did not state the aggregate limits under the policies, but a settlement between Utica and Goulds in an earlier coverage dispute acknowledged that each of the primary policies at issue contained aggregate limits.

In connection with the reinsurance dispute, R&Q sought to compel the production of (1) documents concerning primary insurance policies issued by Utica to other insureds and correspondence reflecting the aggregate limits, and (2) deposition and hearing transcripts from a prior arbitration between Utica and R&Q.

The court declined to compel production of other insureds’ policies, noting that the aggregate limit issue had been litigated and resolved in prior litigation. However, it ordered that the transcripts be produced, but acknowledged that whether the testimony set forth in them would be admissible in the present Utica-R&Q dispute is a different issue. Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v. R & Q Reinsurance Co., Case No. 6:14-CV-00700 (USDC N.D.N.Y. June 2, 2015)

This post written by John A. Camp.

See our disclaimer.

In a Special Focus article, Renee Schimkat discusses recent law on the discoverability of reinsurance-related information in non-reinsurance matters:
“Is There Rhyme or Reason to the Scope of Permissible Reinsurance-Related Discovery?”

This post written by Renee Schimkat.
See our disclaimer.

In a dispute involving the expansion of the Panama Canal, a federal district court has denied an application for an order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to obtain discovery in aid of foreign litigation. The controversy concerned Grupo Unidos por el Canal, S.A.’s (GUPC’s) ex parte application to obtain discovery from an entity with whom the Autoridad del Canal de Panama (ACP) contracted to provide program management services in connection with the Panama Canal project. The contract between GUPC and ACP contains an arbitration clause which provides that any dispute arising from the Canal project be arbitrated in Miami, Florida, under the Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce.

GUPC, along with several co-claimants, commenced the arbitration proceeding against ACP. The Miami-based proceeding is alleged to be the “international tribunal” supporting GUPC’s Section 1782 request for documents. Several objections were made to that request, including (1) the Miami arbitration is a private commercial arbitration and not a “tribunal” within the ambit of Section 1782, (2) the Miami arbitration is not a “foreign or international” tribunal within the meaning of Section 1782 because the seat of the arbitration is in the United States, and (3) the proposed subpoena is unduly burdensome, intrusive, and an attempt to circumvent the contractual procedural and discovery limitations in the arbitration. The court found the proceeding was not a “tribunal” for purposes of Section 1782 and, therefore, found it unnecessary to consider whether the private, Miami-based arbitration was “international.” The court also found that even if the statutory requirements were met, Grupo would not be allowed discovery of 165 million documents that were physically located in Panama, noting that such discovery would be overly burdensome. Grupo’s ex parte application was denied. In re Grupo Unidos Por El Canal, S.A., No. 1:14-mc-00226 (USDC D. Colo. Apr. 17, 2015).

This post written by Renee Schimkat.

See our disclaimer.

A federal district court in Colorado has denied motions for a protective order filed by the insurers in a coverage litigation where Cantex, a third-party assignee to claims against the insurers, asserts causes of action for breach of contract and bad faith. The discovery dispute concerned the scope of Cantex’s Rule 30(b)(6) deposition designations which sought discovery into areas of reserve and reinsurance, claims handling, underwriting, and insurance contract interpretation. The court found that the 30(b)(6) deposition topics on reserve and reinsurance information were relevant when claims of bad faith were still pending. The court therefore denied the motion for a protective order as to those areas of discovery, but permitted the insurers to interpose objections based on privilege as they deem fit. The court further found that discovery seeking testimony relating to the (1) drafting, marketing, and underwriting of the policy, (2) handling of the claims made to the insurers, including the evaluation of the underlying litigation, and (3) interpretation of the insurance policies, was also relevant. The court denied the insurers’ motions for a protective order in their entirety. Phoenix Insurance Co. v. Cantex, Inc., No. 13-cv-00507 (USDC D. Colo. Apr. 14, 2015).

This post written by Renee Schimkat.

See our disclaimer.

In a construction loss coverage litigation brought by Indianapolis Airport Authority (IAA) against its builders risk insurer, Travelers Property Casualty Company, IAA unsuccessfully attempted to issue a subpoena to Travelers’s reinsurer. The subpoena sought various reinsurance agreements, premium and underwriting information, analysis, communications, and loss reports. Travelers moved for a protective order and to quash IAA’s subpoena on the grounds that the discovery of reinsurance information was overly broad, unduly burdensome and not discoverable. Travelers argued that the material requested contains “sensitive business information typically not relevant to coverage itself.” The court agreed that the discovery requested was overbroad in that “IAA requests reinsurance discovery from 2005 through July 10, 2013, despite the fact that the steel tower collapse at issue in this litigation occurred January 24, 2007.” The court further found that the communications requested were irrelevant because they did “not speak to Travelers’ intent and do not clarify any ambiguous terms of the policy.” The court quashed the subpoena and entered a protective order precluding IAA “from obtaining any discovery of reinsurance documentation.” Indianapolis Airport Authority v. Travelers Property Casualty Co. of America, Case No. 1:13-cv-01316 (USDC S.D. Ind. April 7, 2015).

This post written by Michael Wolgin.

See our disclaimer.

In a dispute between the excess and primary liability insurance carriers of a common insured based upon the primary insurer’s alleged breach of the duty to defend the common insured, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (the “Court”) ordered the production of the complete personnel files for claims adjusters involved in the claims process for the case at issue. The excess carrier, which sought production of the claim adjuster personnel files asserted that the personnel files were relevant because: 1) the primary carrier’s guidelines stated that staff counsel is not able to make decisions regarding the claims without first obtaining authority from the claims department, and 2) the adjusters’ experiences and backgrounds were relevant to determining whether they were able to make prudent decisions regarding the underlying claim. The primary carrier argued that it should not be required to produce personnel files because the files could contain sensitive information, the production request was not narrowly tailored, and the excess insurer could obtain the information it seeks when it deposes its employees. The Court found that the personnel files may contain relevant and highly probative information concerning the experiences and backgrounds of the adjusters that handled the claim with staff counsel during the underlying suit. However, given the potential sensitive nature of such files, the Court ordered an in camera inspection of those files. See RSUI Indemnity Company v. American States Insurance, Case No. 2:12-cv-02820 (U.S.D.C. E.D. La. Feb. 18, 2015).

This post written by Kelly A. Cruz-Brown.

See our disclaimer.

A federal district court in New York has held that the attorney-client and work-product privileges apply to coverage memoranda sought by an insured from AIG Specialty Insurance in an ongoing coverage and bad faith litigation where AIG declined coverage for claims brought under a pollution liability policy. The insured first sought production of a memorandum prepared by AIG’s own coverage counsel, which the court found “unquestionably” came within the attorney-client privilege. The insured then sought production of a memorandum prepared by coverage counsel for an additional insured named on the policy, who AIG had covered in the underlying lawsuit. The court found the memorandum was protected by the work-product privilege and because the insured neither demonstrated a “substantial need” for the document nor an “undue hardship” in obtaining equivalent information elsewhere, it was not discoverable. The court further held that certain “executive claim summaries” previously produced by AIG in redacted form were not discoverable. The redacted information concerned only reinsurance calculations and was therefore irrelevant. The court did, however, direct AIG to produce drafts of a coverage letter and any metadata pertaining to that letter, rejecting application of any privilege to that information. Broadrock Gas Services, LLC v. AIG Specialty Insurance Co., Case No. 1:14-cv-03927 (USDC S.D.N.Y. March 2, 2015).

This post written by Renee Schimkat.

See our disclaimer.

The dispute continues between Utica Mutual and Clearwater Insurance in the Northern District of New York where the court recently denied, in large part, the parties’ respective motions to compel discovery of insurance and reinsurance documents unrelated to the specific facultative reinsurance policies at issue in the action. In this case, on which we have previously reported, the issue is whether reinsurance is due under contracts between Utica Mutual and Clearwater for a reinsurance claim relating to a settlement with one of Utica Mutual’s insureds. Utica Mutual sought to compel Clearwater to produce unrelated reinsurance contracts, claim notices, claim files, claim billing information, and other documents concerning contractual relationships with non-parties, arguing these documents were relevant to Clearwater’s defenses and counterclaim that it was misled into paying amounts toward that settlement. Clearwater, in turn, sought to compel Utica Mutual to produce information about primary commercial insurance policies issued by Utica Mutual to a number of its commercial insureds, claiming the information was needed, in part, to determine damages relating to the underlying settlement.

The court denied the parties’ motions, finding the documents sought were not relevant and noting that any issues as to the underlying settlement were already litigated and resolved. Discovery of entirely different contracts and documents that are “not germane or are only faintly relevant” would create confusion and diversion. The court did grant that part of Utica Mutual’s motion seeking to compel Clearwater to respond to an interrogatory requesting the factual and legal bases for Clearwater’s assertions that the amounts it paid to Utica Mutual were not due and payable. That single interrogatory, the court found, sought relevant information. Utica Mutual Insurance Co. v. Clearwater Insurance Co., No. 6:13-cv-01178 (USDC N.D.N.Y. Jan. 20, 2015).

This post written by Renee Schimkat.

See our disclaimer.