Reinsurance Focus

Letters of credit were posted as security for a loss fund in an off-short based rent-a-captive reinsurance program. When the reinsurance program ended, and the remaining claims were finalized, it was agreed that the obligors on the letters of credit had satisfied their obligations under the program and that the letters of credit should be returned. The party holding the letters of credit contended, however, that they were legally entitled to retain the letters of credit for use in unrelated rent-a-captive programs. The obligors sued, seeking damages for the failure to release the letters of credit, alleging breach of fiduciary duty and violation of Connecticut’s Unfair Trade Practices Act. The district court denied a motion to dismiss, relying upon the fact that the letters of credit were the property of the obligors, but that the holder was exercising complete control over the instruments. WEB Management LLC v. Arrowood Indemnity Co., Case No. 07-424 (USDC D. Conn. Mar. 5, 2008).

This post written by Rollie Goss.

According to a recent decision from the UK Commercial Court, a reinsurer’s obligation to “follow the settlements” of its cedent does not apply when the reinsurance contract contains terms making its scope narrower than the original policy. In this case, the cedent, Aegis, sought to recover from its reinsurer, Continental Casualty Company (“CCC”), for claims arising from incidents at an oil refinery. Aegis had settled the claims made by the refinery owner. CCC denied the claim relying on the fact that additional conditions and definitions relating to boiler and machinery cover were attached to the slip which, if found to apply to the entire contract, would exclude recovery. The same definitions did not appear in the underlying policy. The Court found against Aegis on the issue of contract interpretation, and held that since the original policy and the reinsurance policy were not entirely “back to back,” Aegis could not rely on the follow the settlements provision. Aegis Electrical and Gas International Services Co. Ltd. v. Continental Casualty Company, [2007] EWHC 1762 (Comm. July 25, 2007). This opinion is not available on the UK Court site, but is available on WESTLAW at 2007 WL 2041964.

This post written by Lynn Hawkins.

On November 3, 2006 we reported on a decision of a New York state court that followed the follow-the-fortunes provision of a reinsurance agreement, granting summary judgment as to the majority of the reinsurance claims. A New York appellate court recently reversed that decision, revisiting the scope of the follow-the-fortunes doctrine and ex gratia exceptions under New York reinsurance law. The court found that the general “follow-the-fortunes” obligation comes with exceptions for claim payments that are “fraudulent, collusive or otherwise made in bad faith” or are “ex gratia.” Ex gratia payments are payments made by a cedent insurer “that recognizes no legal obligation to pay, but makes payment to avoid greater expense, as in the case of a settlement by an insurance company to avoid the cost of a suit.”

The reinsurer in this case contended that, years after making settlements in thousands of pesticide poisoning cases, the cedent’s parent company reallocated some of its settlement payments from sister companies to the cedent/plaintiff just to obtain the benefit of the reinsurance coverage. The reinsurer charged that the cedent insurance company's conduct constituted bad faith or at least an ex gratia payment that should relieve the reinsurer of any obligation as a matter of law on summary judgment. The New York appellate court disagreed, finding that issues as to the intent and circumstances of the underlying settlements remained unresolved, requiring a trial. Granite State Ins. Co. v. ACE American Reinsurance Co., 2007 NY Slip Op. 10464 (NY App. Div., Dec. 27, 2007).

This post written by Lynn Hawkins.

A New York district court sanctioned Excess Insurance Company in the amount of $4,500 for its failure to communicate with the defendants and with the court. The plaintiff initially filed this action in December 2005, seeking reimbursement under reinsurance agreements executed in 1979 and 1980 with Metropolitan Reinsurance Company. At the initial pre-trial conference, Defendant Odyssey America maintained that it was not the proper party because it was not the successor-in-interest to Met Re. Shortly thereafter, plaintiffs commenced arbitration proceedings against the proper party. For the following six months, the defendant and the court were unable to contact the plaintiff regarding voluntary dismissal of the action. The court, recognizing plaintiff’s “grossly negligent” conduct, sanctioned plaintiff’s in the amount of $4,500 and dismissed the case with prejudice. Excess Ins. Co. v. Odyssey Am. Reinsurance Co., No. 05 Civ. 10884 (NRB), (USDC S.D.N.Y. Nov. 28, 2007).

This post written by Lynn Hawkins.

A New York state court, in an action involving claims under a quota share reinsurance of insurance issued to automobile financing institutions covering the residual value of motor vehicle leases, has resolved some issues as to the interpretation of the reinsurance as a matter of law, finding no ambiguity in the quota share agreements. At the same time, the court denied summary judgment on a claim to rescind the reinsurance on the basis that the cedent had not disclosed to the reinsurer, at the time the reinsurance was placed, that its own actuary had projected a loss ratio of over 100% on the underlying risks. The court found that there was a disputed issue of fact as to when the cedent had knowledge of high losses, but that if it was established that the cedent had such knowledge at the time of placement, rescission would be appropriate. The interpretation issues included such important issues as determining that an entire block of risks could not be ceded to the quota share agreement and the percentage of the pool reinsured by a particular quota share reinsurer. Gulf Insurance Co. v. Transatlantic Reinsurance Co.,. No. 601602/03 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Nov. 21, 2007).

This post written by Rollie Goss.

The California Department of Insurance Conservation and Liquidation Office won a $443.5 million dollar arbitration award in favor of five Superior National Insurance Companies in liquidation. The award was against the United States Life Insurance Company, a subsidiary of AIG.

The arbitration arose out of a dispute of a 1998 reinsurance contract between U.S. Life and the five Superior National Companies. In 1999, U.S. Life initiated arbitration proceedings seeking rescission of the reinsurance contract, alleging misrepresentation and nondisclosure. The following year, Superior National, having suffered significant losses from its workers’ compensation business, became insolvent. California’s Insurance Commissioner seized the companies and placed them in conservation.

The arbitration panel denied U.S. Life’s claim for rescission, which was affirmed by the federal district court and Ninth Circuit. The arbitration panel then convened a second phase of arbitration to determine the amount of damages. The Final Arbitration Award ordered U.S. Life to pay the Superior National companies $443,515,724.

Following the district court’s confirmation of the award, the court entered a memorandum opinion requiring that U.S. Life post a $600 million dollar supersedeas bond (Order on bond memorandum decision) to provide adequate security for the judgment pending appeal. United States Life Ins. Co. v. Superior Nat'l. Ins. Co., Case No. 07-850 (USDC C.D. Cal.). This case is a consolidation of two cases.

This post written by Lynn Hawkins.

On June 19, 2007, we reported on a decision of a district court that refused to imply a follow the fortunes provision into a reinsurance agreement. Based on that finding, American Re, the reinsurer, moved for summary judgment, contending that the contracts at issue unambiguously provided that it was only obligated to pay claims that fell within the scope of the facultative certificate and it was entitled to summary judgment because Plaintiff could not make that showing. The Court disagreed, finding that because the reinsurance agreement provided the reinsured the right to settle claims in some instances, a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the underlying claim was covered by the facultative certificate.

Two weeks after this decision, the case went to trial, and a jury found that American Re breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing in refusing to reimburse its reinsured for the amount paid to settle the claim at issue. American Motorists Ins. Co. v. American Re-Insurance Co., Case No. C 05-5202 CW (USDC N.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2007).

This post written by Lynn Hawkins.

On December 6, 2006, we reported on the decision of a UK court, which interpreted a provision requiring notice to a reinsurer of a claim. The issue was whether the reinsured had knowledge of a loss when its stock price fell due to accounting restatements. While the Commercial Court decided that such activity did not amount to knowledge of a loss, the Court of Appeals disagreed. The UK Court of Appeal therefore reversed, finding that the notification of loss was late under the requirements of the reinsurance agreement. AIG Europe v. Faraday Capital Limited [2007] EWCA Civ 1208 (Nov. 22, 2007).

This post written by Rollie Goss.

In a September 6, 2007 post to this blog, we reported on the decision of the UK Commercial Court striking a defense of settlement to reinsurance claims arising out of claims by North Korean insurers. The UK Court of appeals has affirmed that ruling. Korea National Ins. Corp. v. Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty AG [2007] EWCA Civ. 1066 (Court of Appeals Oct. 30, 2007).

The Oklahoma Insurance Commissioner, in her capacity as the court-appointed receiver of Hospital Casualty Company (“HCC”), brought this action against Employers Reinsurance Corporation (“ERC”) contending that HCC was entitled to recover from ERC for certain claims under reinsurance policies issued by ERC in HCC’s favor. The court recently ruled upon cross motions for summary judgment.

The Mulberry Claim: HCC issued a $1 million primary policy and a $5 million excess policy to Amity Care Corp., a nursing home company. ERC reinsured the excess policy. Amity was sued by the estate of Bonnie Mulberry, a nursing home resident. The case settled for over $1 million dollars. HCC sought indemnity from ERC, but ERC denied the claim asserting that public policy prohibited insurance coverage for punitive damages. The court ruled that the ERC was liable for the excess insurer’s entire share of the settlement because it was unclear which claims the jury relied upon in its determination that punitive damages should be awarded.

The Hepatitis Claim: HCC issued primary and excess general liability policies to Norman Regional Hospital over several years. HCC reinsured the excess policies with ERC. A number of lawsuits including a class action were filed against the hospital by patients exposed to or infected by hepatitis between 1999 and 2002. To settle the claims, NRH agreed to pay $11 million dollars, with HCC providing $8 million. The issue raised in this case was the proper allocation of the $8 million between the relevant policy years. ERC argued that the parties intended to allocate $3 million to the 2000-2001 policy year and $5 million to the 2001-2002 policy years, thereby exhausting both the primary and excess coverage in the 2001-2002 year. The judge agreed, pointing to the undisputed fact that this is what HCC intended.

Claims Expenses: The court further ruled that the reinsurer, ERC, was not obligated to pay additional costs because the excess insurer did not pay or incur any claim expenses in its capacity as the excess insurer. State of Oklahoma ex rel. Kim Holland v. Employers Reinsurance Corp., No. Civ-06-0426-HE (W.D. Okla. Sept. 13, 2007). A prior post dealing with the relationship between this case and the liquidation proceeding appear in this blog on September 20, 2006.