Reinsurance Focus

Utica Mutual Insurance Company brought an action in 2013 against Century Indemnity Company (itself and against certain of its named predecessors) for breach of contract and breach of the duty of utmost good faith, as well as a declaratory claim, regarding alleged amounts due to Utica from Century predecessor Insurance Company of North America under certain reinsurance agreements. The court invited the parties to submit their positions regarding mandatory mediation, but received no response. The Court therefore ordered the parties to participate in the mandatory mediation program, further requiring that they complete it by March 31, 2014. Utica Mutual Insurance Co. v. Century Indemnity Co., Case No. 6:14-CV-995 (USDC N.D.N.Y. Jan. 9, 2014).

This post written by John Pitblado.

See our disclaimer.

A New York federal district court affirmed an arbitration award in favor of R&Q Reinsurance Company as against its cedent, Utica Mutual, in a reinsurance dispute arising from certificates issued by R&Q reinsuring certain umbrella coverage Utica had written covering asbestos-related exposure of its insured. The parties began arbitrating a billing dispute in 2008 which, as of May, 2013, involved more than $21.7 million in disputed amounts. Utica sought coverage for four categories of loss: indemnity, defense, “orphan shares,” and declaratory judgment expense. The panel heard the case and decided in Utica’s favor only on the first category, and in R&Q’s favor on the other three. The panel did not, however, indicate in its award the precise amount owed to Utica by R&Q for the indemnity losses. Both parties made various post-award motions for clarification, but Utica never sought in any of these motions for the panel to set out the precise amount Utica was owed under the first category of loss which it was awarded. R&Q thereafter brought an action in court to confirm the award. The court found that Utica’s failure to seek clarification of the amount with the panel precluded vacatur of the award and that, “[f]or better or worse, the parties to this arbitration tasked the arbitral panel with resolving their dispute at a conceptual, rather than a mathematical, level.” R&Q Reinsurance Co. v. Utica Mutual Insurance Co., Case No. 13-Civ-8013 (USDC S.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2014).

This post written by John Pitblado.

See our disclaimer.

A New York appellate court affirmed the denial of Maurice “Hank” Greenberg’s and former AIG CFO Howard Smith’s motion to recuse the trial judge in a case charging the two with fraudulent reinsurance transactions designed to conceal AIG’s negative financial results. The court found that the trial judge’s “comments at oral argument on the recusal motion and purported improprieties at various proceedings,” did not “demonstrate that the court improperly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s motion for recusal.” The court explained that, while the judge “at times may have been irritated with defense counsel and the prolonged litigation, it cannot be said that his comments, alone or in the aggregate, caused his impartiality to be reasonably questioned.” The court further found to be persuasive the fact that “defendants did not move for recusal until recently, after the court had ruled against them on summary judgment motions, after years of litigation before it.” People v. Greenberg, Case No. 2014 NY Slip Op 00621 (N.Y. Ct. App. Feb. 4, 2014).

This post written by Michael Wolgin.

See our disclaimer.

Insurers sued their reinsurer for breach of certain facultative reinsurance certificates when the reinsurer ceased paying claims made for underlying losses under excess liability coverage for asbestos-related personal injuries. The reinsurer defended its decision to stop paying claims by contending that the insurers violated the reinsurance certificates when they transferred losses to another company; warranties in the reinsurance certificates provided that the insurers would “retain for [their] own account, subject to treaty reinsurance only, if any, the amount specified on the face of” the certificates. The insurers moved to dismiss this defense, arguing that they did not breach the certificates because their transfer of liability constituted a purchase of “treaty reinsurance,” and thus met the stated exception in the warranties. The court rejected the insurers’ argument, holding that “treaty reinsurance is obtained in advance of actual coverage,” and here, it was undisputed that the transfer took place “some 30 years” after the insurer wrote the policies and after the losses occurred. The court also rejected a number of other arguments made by the insurers with respect to other defenses, with two exceptions: (1) that the insurers were correct that the defense of failure to settle promptly was without merit in light of the reinsurer’s duty to follow the settlements of the insurers, and (2) that the reinsurer’s uberrima fides defense was duplicative of the reinsurer’s breach of contract defense, and was therefore due to be dismissed. The court also denied a motion for summary judgment filed by one insurer, which attempted to argue that the reinsurer was liable as a matter of law under the doctrines of waiver and account stated. Granite State Insurance Co. v. Transatlantic Reinsurance Co., Case No. 652506/2012 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Dec. 23, 2013).

This post written by Michael Wolgin.

See our disclaimer.

In a putative class action involving captive reinsurance “sham” contracts, and illegal kickbacks in the residential mortgage insurance industry in violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, the Middle District of Pennsylvania denied Defendant-insurers’ motion to stay proceedings pending the resolution of a factually similar case, Riddle v. Bank of America Corp., pending in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. A court may stay proceedings so as to abide by the outcome of another case that may substantially affect it or be dispositive of the issues, but the appropriateness of such a stay is conditioned on the claims from both proceedings being factually indistinguishable. In Riddle, the court imposed a narrow limitation on discovery, allowing discovery only on the issue of whether Plaintiffs engaged in due diligence following execution of their mortgages. The Cunningham court, however, determined that such a limitation was too narrow, ruling that the equitable tolling doctrine is an entangled, “two-pronged [inquiry] into both plaintiffs’ and defendants’ conduct,” the latter of which encompasses Defendants’ attempts to collectively and fraudulently conceal the improprieties of the reinsurance arrangements. The court found that whether the Third Circuit’s decision in Riddle will control or substantially inform the Cunningham court’s outcome is indeterminable, as Defendants’ contention that the record to be developed in discovery will be identical to the record in Riddle is entirely speculative and premature. Cunningham v. M&T Bank Corp., Case No. 1:12-cv-01238-CCC-SES (M.D. Pa. Jan. 14, 2014).

This post written by Kyle Whitehead.

See our disclaimer.

Utica Mutual’s reinsurance lawsuit with Clearwater Insurance has been ordered to mediation. The reinsured (Utica) asserted claims for breach of contract and declaratory relief, alleging that the reinsurer (Clearwater) breached and is expected to continue breaching certain facultative reinsurance contracts covering a share of losses incurred by the reinsured under umbrella liability insurance policies. The reinsured contended that the reinsurer refused to pay a portion of asbestos claims arising out of a settlement the reinsured entered into with the underlying insured. The case was referred to mandatory confidential mediation on January 8, 2014, and is required to be completed within four months. Utica Mutual Insurance Co. v. Clearwater Insurance Co., Case No. 6:13-cv-01178 (USDC N.D.N.Y. Sept. 20, 2013 & Jan. 8, 2014) (Complaint & Order).

This post written by Michael Wolgin.

See our disclaimer.

In a reinsurance dispute, a court agreed to seal portions of two memoranda of law and exhibits containing excerpts of deposition testimony of the reinsurer’s vice president. The court had previously provisionally sealed the material pursuant to the parties’ stipulated protective order, subject to the reinsurer’s submission of the particular lines and/or passages of testimony to be sealed and the particular grounds for such sealing. After the reinsurer submitted this information, the court agreed to maintain the sealing. Regarding the relevant portions of the memoranda, the court found that they contain confidential business information, and that sealing was appropriate in light of the fact that the cedent had also filed redacted versions of both documents. The court also agreed to permanently seal the deposition excerpts because the court found that they “contain sensitive and confidential business information, disclosure of which could materially affect [the reinsurer’s] ability to compete effectively as a business,” and because the request was narrowly tailored. Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Excalibur Reinsurance Corp., Case No. 3:11-cv-1209 (USDC D. Conn. Nov. 26, 2013).

This post written by Michael Wolgin.

See our disclaimer.

Public Reimbursement Management of Florida (“PRM”) sued its reinsurer One Beacon Insurance Co. (“OneBeacon”) for reimbursement of defense costs PRM incurred while defending an insured involved in a construction contract dispute. The primary issue was whether the underlying construction contract dispute fell within PRM’s duty to defend and whether OneBeacon was obligated to reimburse PRM. The Florida district court granted OneBeacon’s motion to dismiss with prejudice, concluding that (1) PRM did not have a duty to defend because the construction dispute fell within an exclusion in the PRM insurance policy for intentional breaches of contract, and (2) the theory of equitable estoppel did not apply to create insurance coverage between OneBeacon and PRM because OneBeacon made it clear in its correspondence with PRM that it did not believe PRM had a duty to defend the construction contract dispute. Public Risk Management of Florida v. One Beacon Insurance Co., Case No. 13-1067 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 18, 2013).

This post written by Abigail Kortz.

See our disclaimer.

A Florida circuit court recently denied defendants’ motions for summary judgment in a suit filed by a Costa Rican insurer against two reinsurance brokers – one from the United States and one from England – alleging breach of contract and a host of claims involving negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and misrepresentation. The crux of the plaintiff’s complaint is that the brokers’ commission earnings were unreasonable, excessive, and undisclosed because a less-than-$200,000 flat commission bid for the brokerage business during an initial bidding stage (which was allegedly terminated) grew to nearly $2 million in a subsequent bidding stage wherein the bid quoted only a total price of over $12 million, without separate premium and brokerage commission line items. The defendants’ motions asserted that Florida law does not impose limits on broker compensation, particularly in arms-length transactions between sophisticated parties, and does not mandate voluntary disclosure of brokers’ earnings, lest a contract requires it. In addition, the insurer chose to award its business as it did because the defendants presented the best price, terms, and other conditions of the reinsurance. Since the Order does not provide any analysis or reasons for the ruling, although it may have given some indication during argument, the Order does not indicate whether the Court denied the motion due to the presence of disputed issues of material fact or because of a disagreement with the legal arguments made by the movants. Instituto Nacional de Seguros v. Hemispheric Reinsurance Group, Case No. 10-33653 CA 04 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Oct. 7, 2013).

This post written by Kyle Whitehead.

See our disclaimer.

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.