Reinsurance Focus

LDG Re reinsured workers' compensation and employers' liability risks retained by Legion Insurance and a related company under two quota share reinsurance agreements. LDG Re booked the reinsurance into a pool facility in which a number of companies participated, including Chartwell Reinsurance (which was later purchased by Trenwick America Reinsurance). When LDG failed to make timely payments under the quota share agreements, Legion demanded arbitration. A settlement was reached. When LDG allegedly failed to make payments required by the settlement agreement, Legion sought to reactivate the arbitration. LDG objected, contending that the dispute was not arbitrable and that the pool members were entitled to set off other debts owed to them by Legion. The panel entered an award purporting to enforce the settlement agreement, requiring a payment by LDG of over $5 million, not mentioning the set off request. Legion moved to confirm the award, and Trenwick moved to intervene in both the District Court action and in Legion's liquidation proceeding in Pennsylvania state court, seeking to assert a set off. In a Memorandum Opinion, followed by an Order and Judgment, the District Court confirmed the arbitration award, but stayed execution pending the submission by Legion or Trenwick of a motion in the liquidation proceeding seeking a ruling as to whether the claimed set off should be allowed. Koken v. LDG Re Corp., Case No. 06-81 (USDC ED Pa. Dec. 29, 2006).

The Fall 2006 issue of the Environmental Claims Journal contains an article by Carol Ann O'Dea and Vincent J. Vitkowsky titled Reinsurance Issues Arising from the 2005 Hurricane Season. Information about the Environmental Claims Journal may be found on the Internet.

A District Court has held that policies providing property coverage for the World Trade Center (“WTC”) complex , which provided “replacement cost” coverage, provided coverage limited to what it would cost to replace the covered buildings as they stood immediately prior to their destruction, and did not cover additional amounts to make the re-built WTC safe, modern and politically palatable. SR International Business Ins. Co. v. World Trade Center Properties LLC, Case No. 01-9291 (USDC SDNY Oct. 31, 2006).

One of the more intriguing articles about reinsurance recently has been one which suggests that North Korea may be engaged in massive reinsurance claim fraud to generate hard currency for its ailing economy. All insurance in North Korea is written through one state-owned company, which reinsures the risks through Lloyds and non-Lloyds reinsurance companies. It is suspected that North Korea has been submitting bogus claims and claims with phony documentation, encompassing losses aggregating as much as $150 million. The closed nature of the society prevents reinsurers or claims agents from investigating the losses. This is interesting reading at Foxnews.com (until they archive the link).

A Pennsylvania court has ruled in a dispute over the sufficiency of a letter of credit posted by a cedent and draws on that instrument. The state court's opinion is available through Mealey's. Eastern Atlantic Ins. Co. v. Swiss Reinsurance America Corp., No. 2004 cv 5514 (Pa. Comm. Pls. Dauphin Co.). There had been a parallel action in federal court, in which the Court abstained to permit the state court to adjudicate the disputes. Eastern Atlantic Ins. Co. v. Swiss Reinsurance America Corp., Case No. 04-1555 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 16, 2004).

In a summary judgment posture, a New York state court has rejected a reinsurer's late notice claim, finding that under New York law a reinsurer must prove prejudice due to late notice in order for late notice to constitute a defense to failure to pay claims. The Court found that no evidence of prejudice had been proffered. The Court then enforced a follow the fortunes clause as to the majority of the reinsurance claims at issue, finding that the reinsurer had not developed evidence in extensive discovery that the reinsured had acted fraudulently or in bad faith in paying the claims. The Court denied summary judgment as to claims relating to one underlying insured, based upon limited evidence that suggested possible bad faith in the payment of claims submitted by that party. Granite State Insur. Co. v. Ace American Reinsur. Co., Index No. 604347/04, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York (Aug. 4, 2006).

A UK Court has held that a follow the fortunes provision in facultative reinsurance contracts did not apply to without prejudice settlements reached by a reinsured with its insureds, since the clause provided that the reinsurance would “follow in all respects the settlements or other payments of whatsoever nature excluding without prejudice and ex-gratia settlements.” The clear contractual exclusion of without prejudice settlements from the operation of the follow the fortunes clause meant that the reinsured had to prove that the claims payments were appropriate under the underlying insurance. Faraday Capital Ltd. v. Copenhagen Reinsurance Co., [2006] EWHC 1474, [2006] All ER D 74, 2006 WL 2667603 (Queen's Bench Comm. Ct. May 4, 2006).

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has affirmed the District Court's decision with respect to coverage for the September 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center towers. The District Court held that the attack consituted a single occurrence with respect to some of the insurance, and two occurrences with respect to other insurance. SR International Business Insur. Co. v. World Trade Center Properties, LLC, Case No. 04-4500 (2nd Cir. Oct. 18, 2006).

A New Jersey Appellate Court has agreed with arguments made by the Reinsurance Association of America, holding that a court could not, under the authority of New Jersey's Insurer Liquidation Act, adopt a plan that forced reinsurers to pay claims based upon IBNR estimates, and could not abrogate arbitration provisions contained in reinsurance agreements to force that disputes be litigated in the liquidation court. In re Liquidation of Integrity Insurance Company, Case No., C-7022-86, 2006 WL 2795343 (N.J. Super. A.D. Oct. 2, 2006).

A US District Court, which had twice before denied motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction filed by Equitas Holdings Limited, Equitas Reinsurance Limited and Equitas Limited, has granted a motion to dismiss on the same ground filed by the same entities in a third case seeking arbitration of issues arising out of the denial of reinsurance claims. Employers Insurance Company of Wausau v. Equitas Holdings Limited, Case no. 06-291 (W.D. Wisc. Sept. 12, 2006). The Court found that the factual record before it in the prior cases had not been fully developed, and that it was joining the majority of courts that had ruled on this issue.