Reinsurance Focus

A settlement in principle was reached in Century Indemnity Company v. Global Reinsurance Corporation of America, a breach of contract case involving the nonpayment by Global Reinsurance of its portion of an asbestos exposure-related loss incurred by Century under two umbrella liability policies. Global had an uphill battle because the facultative reinsurance agreements contained a follow-the-fortunes provision, obligating Global to follow all loss settlements made by Century, provided that such settlements are within the terms and conditions of both the original policies and the reinsurance certificates. Century Indemnity Co. v. Global Reinsurance Corp. of Am., Case No. 13-CV-797 (KBF) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2013).

This post written by Kyle Whitehead.

See our disclaimer.

In a dispute with reinsurers over coverage for the settlement of asbestos-related disputes valued at close to one billion dollars, in which the reinsurance contracts contained a follow the fortunes provision, the reinsurers challenged whether the doctrine applied to the cedent’s decisions in the allocation of the settlement amount, and, if applicable, it could be applied in a summary judgment context to the cedent’s allocation of the settlement. Modifying the decision of the lower court, the Court of Appeals held: (1) the follow the fortunes doctrine applied to the cedent’s allocation of the settlement amount; (2) the doctrine appropriately was applied to sustain the cedent’s allocation of the entire settlement amount to a single policy year, since the applicable trigger of coverage supported such an allocation; and (3) disputed issues of material fact prevented the application of the doctrine in a summary judgment context with respect to challenges to the allocation of the settlement amount to different policies and the value attributable to specific types of claims. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company v. American Re-Insurance Company3, 2013 WL 451666 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2/7/2013).

This post written by Rollie Goss.

See our disclaimer.

On September 24, 2012, we reported on the denial of summary judgment in a lawsuit brought by an acquirer of a reinsurer against the former parent company of the reinsurer, for an alleged $13 million intentional understatement of case reserves in connection with reinsurance of airplanes involved in the 9/11 attacks. The dispute surrounded the reinsurer’s setting of its reserves based on one “terrorism” event, rather than a higher liability for two “hijacking” attacks, despite the fact that the cedents and brokers treated the loss as two attacks. The court denied the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, holding that factual questions existed as to whether the reinsurer’s alleged fraud constitutes a “loss” under the under the relevant stock purchase agreement and, if so, whether the “loss” was caused by the reinsurer’s misrepresentations. The parties recently filed a joint stipulation of undisputed facts wherein the parties set forth agreed facts relating to the reinsurance industry and details of their dispute, including that the reinsurer’s case reserves at the time of acquisition totaled over $12 million, and that the reinsurer has thus far received and paid claims totaling approximately $9.66 million. WT Holdings, Inc. v. Argonaut Group, Inc., Index No. 600925/2009 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 26, 2012).

This post written by Michael Wolgin.

See our disclaimer.

A consortium of London reinsurers are seeking a declaration from an English court regarding their duty to indemnify Philippine insurer Oriental Insurance Company for losses resulting from the sinking of a cargo passenger ship during Typhoon Frank in 2008. The sinking, which caused widespread outrage in the Philippines due to the vessel’s failure to heed storm warnings resulted in over 500 deaths and significant property loss. The reinsurance contract contained a “Typhoon Warranty,” which voided the policy if an otherwise covered vessel left port during a typhoon or storm warning. Oriental’s underlying policy with the ship owner contained a virtually identical clause. Oriental, facing massive claims and litigation in the Philippines, sought a stay of the proceedings initiated by the British reinsurers, arguing that their action was premature given the reinsurance contract’s “follow the fortunes” clause and significant unresolved claims pending in the Philippine courts. The lower court dismissed Oriental’s application for a stay, holding that such relief should only be granted in “rare and compelling circumstances,” which were not present. The appellate court dismissed the appeal with “little enthusiasm,” finding the lower court’s decision correct but noting its apparent “unfairness.” In particular, as one justice noted, the reinsurers’ action might force Oriental to assert in the London courts that the “Typhoon Warranty” did not apply, a position diametrically opposed to the one it would wish to take in defending ongoing and imminent coverage suits in the Philippines. Amlin Corp. Member Ltd. v. Oriental Assurance Corp., [2012] EWCA Civ. 1341 (Royal Courts of Justice, Queen Bench Division, Commercial Court Oct. 17, 2012).

This post written by Ben Seessel.
See our disclaimer.

In a dispute between reinsurers Trenwick America Reinsurance Corp. and IRC Re Limited regarding the alleged breach by IRC Re of a retrocessional reinsurance agreement, a court applied the “follow the fortunes” doctrine to find that IRC violated the agreement in bad faith. The dispute arose when IRC Re “at the 11th hour” denied the existence of a written reinsurance agreement and refused to pay its share of the liabilities arising from the underlying insurance program. The court found that an unwritten agreement existed based on IRC Re’s conduct (e.g., accepting premium payments), correspondence, and testimony from other parties involved in the program. The 56 page opinion contains extensive discussion regarding the existence and terms of the reinsurance contract, its place in a larger reinsurance program, and IRC’s conduct in the reinsurance dispute. IRC Re was not permitted to raise claim payment defenses due to the “follow the fortunes” doctrine. The court found that the doctrine was customary in the reinsurance industry and was therefore applicable even in the absence of a written agreement. The court further held that IRC Re, its CEO, and IRC Re’s affiliate responsible for managing the underlying insurance program, violated the Massachusetts unfair and deceptive trade practices statute. With the program’s manager and the program’s reinsurer “aligned on the same side” there was “little chance of resolving the claim in a timely fashion and surely without litigation” and they “did everything they could to obfuscate the issues and stall their ultimate resolution.” Trenwick America Reinsurance Corp. v. IRC, Inc., Case No. 07-12160 (USDC D. Mass. Feb. 16, 2011).

This post written by Michael Wolgin.

Various AIG entities filed an action against their reinsurers seeking a declaration of coverage for portions of a settlement AIG made in a coverage dispute with its insured, Monsanto Corporation. Monsanto faced extensive litigation in underlying chemical pollution cases against it, which it ultimately settled for approximately $600 million. AIG sought reinsurance coverage for portions of its payments to Monsanto. The reinsurers denied AIG’s claims on the basis that AIG’s payments to Monsanto were “ex gratia” and not covered under AIG’s policies, citing the pollution exclusion, exclusions for punitive damages, and allocation issues with other underlying insurers. In defending against the reinsurers’ motions for summary judgment, AIG raised the “follow the settlements” doctrine, which binds a reinsurer to a settlement agreed to by the ceding company if the underlying risk is “reasonably within the terms of the original policy” even if not technically covered. The court granted the reinsurers’ motions and dismissed AIG’s case. It found that, even affording AIG the greater leeway of the “follow the settlements” doctrine, the claims were not reasonably within the coverage of AIG’s underyling policies, and AIG, in entering into the settlement with Monsanto, failed to conduct a reasonable investigation of the Monsanto claims by glossing over critical coverage issues, unnecessarily exposing its reinsurers to non-covered claims. American Home Assurance Co. v. American Re-Insurance Co., No. 602485/06 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 27, 2010).

This post written by John Pitblado.

Century Indemnity Company (“Century”) made claim under certain retrocession agreements between it and Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London (“Lloyd’s”) for a portion of the payment Century made to its reinsured, Argonaut Insurance Company (“Argonaut”) in connection with underlying asbestos coverage litigation expenses. Lloyd’s denied the claim, asserting that Century’s payment to Argonaut was not warranted under the reinsurance treaties. Century sued to recover the approximately $2 million in dispute. Lloyd’s moved to compel arbitration. Although it was undisputed that the retrocession agreements did not contain an arbitration clause, the trial court agreed with Lloyd’s that the retrocession agreements incorporated the underlying reinsurance treaties by reference, which treaties did contain arbitration provisions, and therefore granted the motion to compel arbitration. The parties arbitrated, and the three-member panel found in Lloyd’s favor, finding the reinsurance treaties did not obligate Century to pay Argonaut, and therefore Lloyd’s was not obligated to pay Century any portion of the payment to Argonaut. Century moved to vacate the award, contending that the arbitral panel had manifestly disregarded the law and failed to admit evidence which should have been admitted. The district court denied the motion. Century appealed to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed both the decision to compel arbitration, and the decision denying the motion to vacate the award. Century Indemnity Company v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, No. 08-2924 (3d Cir. Oct. 15, 2009).

This post written by John Pitblado.

Courts Confirm Awards Finding Sufficient Support In Record: New Jersey Reg'l Council of Carpenters v. Patock Constr. Co., Case No. 08-4952 (USDC D.N.J. Mar. 11, 2009) (sufficient basis to find that respondent improperly subcontracted with a non-signatory subcontractor and lost work opportunity damages were proper); Tlumacki v. CAN Ins. Cos., No. A-4024-05T5 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Mar. 31, 2009) (sufficient evidentiary basis for the award existed and no showing of impartiality).

Confirming Awards Based On Arbitrator’s Interpretation Of Agreement: Blair Commc'ns, Inc. v. Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Local Union No. 5, Case No. 07-162 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 26, 2009) (“work preservation” agreement in collective bargaining agreement did not violate public policy); Global Reinsurance Corp. of Am. v. Argonaut Ins. Co., Case No. 07-7514 (USDC S.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2009) (arbitrator employed a plausible construction of reinsurance treaties’ definition of “loss occurrence,” and properly applied “follow the fortunes” doctrine).

Requests To Vacate: McQueen-Starling v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc., Case No. 08-4885 (USDC S.D.N.Y. Mar. 20, 2009) (remanding to arbitrator for clarification of unaddressed “retaliation claim” in discrimination case); Int'l Longshoremen’s Ass'n (Local 1575) v. Horizon Lines, Inc., Case. No. 08-1530 (USDC D.P.R. Mar. 16, 2008) (award “does not suffer from inanition or manifest errors of law”); Jones v. PPG Indus. Inc., Case No. 07-1537 (USDC W.D. Pa. Mar. 13, 2009) (no manifest disregard of law); Williams v. Mexican Rest. Inc., Case No. 05-841 (USDC E.D.Tex. Mar. 18, 2009) (confirming award since errors of fact did not justify vacating awards; see March 25, 2009 post); Kesterson v. NCO Portfolio Mgmt. Inc., Case No. 08-182 (USDC N.D. Ind. Mar. 27, 2009) (adopting Report and Recommendation that petition to vacate award be granted following entry of default judgment for defendant’s failure to appear).

Miscellaneous: A. Bauer Mech. Inc. v. Joint Arbitration Bd. of the Plumbing Contractors’ Ass'n, No. 06-3936 (7th Cir. Mar. 25, 2009) (affirming default judgment for failure to respond to counterclaim to enforce arbitration board’s ruling; Caraballo v. City of Chicago, Case No. 07-2807 (USDC N.D. Ill. Mar. 18, 2009) (requiring plaintiffs to arbitrate consolidated FLSA claims); Laundry, Dry Cleaning Workers & Allied Indus. Health Fund v. Jung Sun Laundry Group Corp Case, No. 08-2771 (USDC E.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2007) (adopting Report and Recommendation that award be confirmed; respondent failed to appear at arbitration and confirmation proceedings and no manifest disregard of law).

This post written by Brian Perryman.

On September 2, 2008, we reported that the District Court for the Western District of Missouri granted summary judgment against Employers Reinsurance Corporation, finding that their contract with Mass Mutual did, in fact, contain a clear “follow the fortunes” clause. ERC subsequently moved for the court to reconsider its ruling, or in the alternative, to certify the “follow the fortunes” issue for immediate interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).

The court ruled that ERC’s motion for reconsideration amounted to little more than a reassertion of its arguments on summary judgment. The court interpreted ERC’s motion as arguing that the court committed a manifest error of law simply because the court disagreed with ERC’s arguments. Noting that Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) did not list “manifest error of law” as a reason sufficient for reconsideration, the court denied ERC’s motion.

The court additionally denied ERC’s motion to certify the “follow the fortunes” issue for immediate interlocutory appeal, finding that it was an issue of interpretation of the contract, and not a pure question of law, which was required for an interlocutory appeal certification. Employers Reinsurance Corporation v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co., Case No. 06-0188 (USDC W.D. Mo. Oct 23, 2008).

This post written by John Black.

Tall Tree insured Hewlett Packard, and was reinsured by Munich Reinsurance for amounts Tall Tree was required to pay to Hewlett Packard. Hewlett Packard was involved in litigation under which liabilities arose. Rather than first indemnifying Hewlett Packard, Tall Tree sued Munich Reinsurance in federal district court, seeking a declaratory judgment that Tall Tree was obligated to pay Hewlett Packard and that, in turn, Munich Reinsurance was obligated to pay Tall Tree. The court would not entertain the case: Tall Tree lacked standing to assert its claims. As to the question of whether Tall Tree was obligated to pay Hewlett Packard, the court noted that there was no live controversy before it; Tall Tree “can simply pay HP.” There was also no live controversy on the question of whether Munich Reinsurance was obligated to pay Tall Tree. The “follow the fortunes” doctrine did not apply because Tall Tree had not yet paid Hewlett Packard; there was essentially no “fortune” yet to follow, and the request for declaratory relief hence was premature. The case was dismissed. The Tall Tree Insurance Co. v. Munich Reinsurance America, Inc., Case No. C-08-1060 (USDC N.D. Cal. July 29, 2008).

This post written by Brian Perryman.