Reinsurance Focus

Section 5/123(5) of the Illinois Insurance Code requires unauthorized foreign and alien company’s to post security prior to filing a pleading in any action or arbitration proceeding. An explicit exception is made for the filing of a motion to quash process or set aside service. The Northern District of Illinois recently interpreted this section of the Insurance Code in coverage litigation between an insured and its insurer and determined that the “language does not suggest that the excepted motions are exclusive.” Based on that reasoning, the court denied plaintiff’s motion for an order requiring the defendant to post security prior to filing a motion. Baxter International, Inc. v. AXA Versicherung, Case No. 1:11-cv-09131 (USDC N.D. Ill. Jan. 11, 2013).

This post written by Abigail Kortz.

See our disclaimer.

As previously reported, the Northern District of Illinois recently held that the prejudgment security required by the Illinois Insurance Code is an “attachment” within the meaning of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and was therefore not required of the foreign defendant in that case. The court denied plaintiff’s motion to strike and the plaintiff subsequently moved to amend or correct the court’s order. The court stood by its decision in two additional orders: 1) denying plaintiff’s motion to amend the order because plaintiff failed to establish any misapprehension of the case law, and 2) granting defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint for an order compelling arbitration for failure to state a claim. The court determined that the plaintiff could not compel arbitration because the assignment agreement that gave plaintiff limited rights to collect certain debts did not also assign the rights and duties under the reinsurance treaties with the defendants, which included the arbitration clauses. The plaintiff has appealed the December 13, 2012 Order concerning pre-hearing security and the February 5, 2013 Order denying the request to amend the December Order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Pine Top Receivables of Illinois, LLC v. Banco de Seguros del Estado, Case No. 12-6357 (USDC N.D. Ill.)

This post written by Abigail Kortz.

See our disclaimer.

In an arbitration related to an uninsured motorist insurance claim, the insured twice challenged the arbitrators’ discovery rulings by filing declaratory relief actions in state court. The first time, the appellate court affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of the action for failure to first challenge the subject order with the arbitrators. The second time, after the appellant unsuccessfully challenged the orders with the arbitrators, the lower court dismissed the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction over interlocutory arbitration orders. On appeal, the appellate court affirmed the result, but disagreed with the lower court’s reasoning. The court held that a declaratory relief action is indeed a “justiciable” matter under state law, notwithstanding that the underlying issue involved interlocutory arbitration orders. The court ultimately concluded, however, that based on the legislative history of the Uniform Arbitration Act, the action still should have been dismissed for lack of ripeness. The court explained, “The meaning of [the legislative history] could not be clearer: if there is a dispute about an issue that is subject to the arbitration agreement, then the courts cannot review the arbitrator’s ruling on that issue until after the arbitration process is complete.” Klehr v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co., Case No. 1-12-1843 (Ill. Ct. App. Jan. 22, 2013).

This post written by Michael Wolgin.

See our disclaimer.

On May 1, 2012, we reported on the Second Circuit’s affirmance of a denial of Utica Mutual Insurance Company’s motion to disqualify R & Q Reinsurance Company’s attorneys in a dispute arising out of the alleged breach of three confidentiality agreements, including one entered as an order in the parties’ pending reinsurance arbitration. Utica alleged that R&Q breached the confidentiality agreement put in place in the reinsurance arbitration by improperly disclosing confidential information in a separate lawsuit against a third party. On December 14, 2012, the court adopted a magistrate’s recommendation (entered on November 6, 2012), to deny Utica’s motion for preliminary injunction enjoining R&Q from disclosing the alleged confidential information. The court found that Utica failed to demonstrate with any specificity that the alleged breach of confidentiality would cause it irreparable harm, although the court did note that Utica showed a likelihood of success on the merits of its claim that the confidentiality agreements had been breached. Utica Mutual Insurance Co. v. INA Reinsurance Co., Case No. 6:12-cv-00194 (USDC N.D.N.Y. Dec. 14, 2012).

This post written by Michael Wolgin.

See our disclaimer.

The first decision involved reconsideration of an interim arbitration award of prejudgment security that the court initially refused to confirm as a manifest disregard of the law. The court had determined that the arbitrators erroneously awarded a prejudgment bond of $10 million or an injunction from transferring such an amount, in the alternative. The court had relied on a provision in the underlying contract that provided that the agreement would be enforced in accordance with New York law, which prohibits such provisional remedies. On reconsideration, however, the court focused on another provision of the agreement, which adopted the AAA International Dispute Resolution Procedures. Under those rules, such provisional remedies were permitted. The court held, “It lay with the parties to confer on the arbitrator whatever powers they wished. Having adopted rules that allowed the arbitrator to award interim security, [defendants] are bound by their bargain. Nothing about enforcing an order rendered in accordance with the procedures to which the parties agreed offends either New York law or New York public policy.” The court relied on a Second Circuit opinion, Banco de Seguros del Estado v. Mutual Marine Offices, Inc., as support for this holding, and as support for the underlying premise that interim security issues are reviewable prior to a final arbitration award. CE International Resources Holdings LLC v. S.A. Minerals Ltd. Partnership, Case No. 1:12-cv-08087 (USDC S.D.N.Y. Dec. 10, 2012).

The second decision involved a court’s refusal to prohibit a foreign sovereign-owned bank from litigating in a reinsurance dispute, notwithstanding the bank’s failure to post security as required by state law. The court held that the bank could not be compelled to post such security under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which prohibits “attachment” of the property of a foreign state or its instrumentalities. The court found that other courts that have considered this issue have determined that the practical effect of prejudgment security is akin to an attachment of property, and thus the FSIA’s immunity applied. The court also found that the bank did not waive this immunity, distinguishing the Second Circuit’s opinion in Banco De Seguros Del Estado v. Mutual Marine Offices, Inc. Whereas the Second Circuit opinion found waiver of FSIA immunity under an arbitration agreement that permitted the arbitrators to “abstain” from following “the strict rules of law,” this case involved no such agreement. Pine Top Receivables of Illinois, LLC v. Banco De Seguros Del Estado, Case No. 1:12-cv-06357 (USDC N.D. Ill. Dec. 13, 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.

INA Reinsurance recently moved to dismiss or to stay an action initiated by Utica Mutual Insurance arising out of the alleged breach of three confidentiality agreements, including one entered as an order in the parties’ pending reinsurance arbitration. Utica alleged that INA breached the confidentiality agreement put in place in the reinsurance arbitration by improperly disclosing confidential information in a separate lawsuit against a third party. The federal district court denied INA’s motion to dismiss or to stay, finding that the Supreme Court’s Colorado River abstention doctrine inapplicable because the defendants in the two lawsuits were unrelated and the claims were significantly different. Further, the district court concluded that Utica was not required to pursue its claims for breach of the confidentiality agreements in the pending arbitration because there exists clear language in the confidentiality agreements authorizing Utica to pursue claims for breach in a judicial forum. Utica Mutual Insurance Co. v. INA Reinsurance Co., No. 12-cv-00194 (USDC N.D.N.Y. Apr. 24, 2012).

This post written by John Black.

See our disclaimer.

A putative class action against HSBC and its affiliates asserting violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 was stayed in part pending the outcome of First American Financial Corp. v. Edwards, a case expected to be resolved this term by the U.S. Supreme Court. The named plaintiff seeks to represent, among others, consumers whose residential mortgage loans were included within HSBC’s captive mortgage reinsurance arrangements. Among other things, plaintiff seeks classwide resolution of whether the captive reinsurance arrangements constituted unlawful kickbacks from the private mortgage insurer defendants. The district court issued a partial stay of the action pending the decision in First American, where the Supreme Court is expected to rule whether a private purchaser of real estate settlement services has standing under Article III of the Constitution to assert a RESPA claim absent a showing that the alleged violation affected the price, quality, or other characteristics of the settlement services provided. McCarn v. HSBC USA, Inc., Case No. 12-375 (USDC E.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2012).

This post written by John Black.

See our disclaimer.

General Security National Insurance Company brought an action in New York federal court against Aequicap Insurance Company, in connection with Aequicap’s alleged failure to perform under a surety bond it issued to General Security.  After Aequicap filed an answer in the case, General Security filed a motion seeking to compel Aequicap to post security pursuant to New York’s pre-pleading security statute.  Aequicap objected on various bases, including the fact that, after the filing of General Security’s motion, a stay had been entered in Aequicap’s Florida rehabilitation proceeding.  The New York court denied General Security’s motion, citing the Florida court’s stay Order, and dismissed the case without prejudice to re-filing, pending the outcome of the Florida proceeding.   General Security Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Aequicap Ins. Co., No. 10-9685 (USDC S.D.N.Y. April 29, 2011).

This post written by John Pitblado.

Parties have been ordered to pick proper arbitrators in a reinsurance dispute. Safety National sued Lloyd’s over a dispute pertaining to the parties’ reinsurance agreements covering certain of Safety National’s underlying workers compensation liabilities. A stay was entered to allow the parties to arbitrate. After six months of wrangling over the naming of arbitrators, Lloyd’s moved to lift the stay for the limited purpose of having the court issue an order requiring that the parties select only arbitrators with workers compensation reinsurance experience, as Lloyd’s contended the contracts required – a position which Safety National contested. Citing the policy embodied in the FAA’s provisions authorizing court involvement in the selection of arbitrators to facilitate efficient arbitration, the court ruled for Lloyd’s. It lifted the stay and ordered that the parties select arbitrators with requisite workers compensation reinsurance experience. Safety National Cas. Corp. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, NO. 02-cv-1146 (USDC M.D. La. Aug. 16, 2011).

This post written by John Pitblado.