Reinsurance Focus

The Queen’s Bench Division of the Commercial Court affirmed an order permitting Faraday Reinsurance Co. to serve process out of the jurisdiction against defendant Howden North America. Howden had argued that service should not be permitted and that the parties’ quarrel should be resolved in litigation pending in Pennsylvania federal court. The underlying dispute relates to coverage for asbestos liabilities under three excess layer policies. The case implicates potential differences between English and American law on loss triggers, i.e., whether exposure to a hazardous substance itself constitutes a loss, or whether loss occurs at the time of manifestation or at some other incremental stage between exposure and manifestation. This determination can be dispositive in cases involving asbestos coverage because mesothelioma, which is caused by asbestos exposure, typically does not manifest for decades. Earlier this year, we reported on a decision by the U.K. Court of Appeals holding that the insurer on the risk at the time of exposure, not manifestation, is responsible for the liability. Faraday Reinsurance Co. v. Howden North America, Inc. [2011] EWHC 2837 (Q.B. Comm. Ct. Nov. 1, 2011).

This post written by Ben Seessel.

An English appellate court permitted an Australian reinsurer in liquidation to enforce a judgment entered in Australian insolvency proceedings against a Lloyd’s syndicate, which had elected not to participate in the foreign proceedings. On appeal, the syndicate argued that England’s reciprocity act did not apply to foreign judgments made in insolvency proceedings, and that England’s insolvency act, which recognizes Australian courts, should be interpreted as strictly permitting only Australian choice of law, rather than the enforcement of Australian judgments. The court disagreed on both issues, relying on another English appellate decision (currently on appeal before the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom) that held that England would enforce a foreign insolvency judgment under the reciprocity act, and rejecting the syndicate’s narrow interpretation of the insolvency act. The court considered the respective laws’ legislative history, as well as the interplay between English common law, the reciprocity act, and the insolvent act’s jurisdictional provisions. In re New Cap Reinsurance Corp. Ltd. (In Liquidation), 2011 EWCA Civ 971 (Eng. Ct. App. August 9, 2011).

This post written by Michael Wolgin.

Julian Jeffrey Messent, a reinsurance broker who was head of the Property Division (Americas) of PWS International Limited, a London-based reinsurance broker, was convicted in London in late 2010 of corruption offenses, stemming from his supervision of payments made to various Costa Rican governmental officials. The payments were found to be bribes meant to steer reinsurance placement for Costa Rican government-owned utility organizations to PWS. For his placement of the contracts, Messent received large incentive bonuses between 1999 and 2002 from PWS. After a new President of Costa Rica was elected in 2002, newly appointed Costa Rican officials discovered the improper payments, and both the Costa Rican and U.K. governments undertook criminal investigations which led to Messent’s arrest in 2007. Messent appealed his sentencing of 21 months each on two counts of corruption (to run concurrently), as well as a fine of £100,000. The convictions were affirmed on appeal, the court noting “there can be no doubt that corruption of foreign government officials . . . is at the top end of serious corporate offending both in terms of culpability and harm.” Regina v. Messent, [2011] EWCA Crim 644 (Eng. Ct. App.).

This post written by John Pitblado.

The UK Commercial Court, Queens Bench Division, recently decided a discovery matter in a reinsurance dispute. The litigation arose out of a dispute under a facultative reinsurance contract, which reinsured claimant Axa Seguros’ participation in an insurance policy covering risks of physical damage to a “Toll Road Network concession” in Mexico. After a hurricane caused damage to a highway, Axa Seguros initiated arbitration and subsequently filed suit against Allianz, seeking indemnity for sums said to be due under the reinsurance contract. Axa sought all reports and associated documents produced by Halcrow, an engineering company hired to inspect the damaged highway. Allianz, for its part, claimed a litigation privilege on the basis that it was obtained and prepared for the purpose of obtaining legal advice in connection with expected litigation. The presiding justice concluded that, although litigation was reasonably expected at the time the reports were made, the reports were not generated for the predominant purpose of anticipated litigation. Rather, they were generated to assess whether the highway had been constructed up to international standards, and to determine what damage had been caused by the hurricane. Accordingly, Axa was entitled to the materials sought. Axa Seguros, S.A. DE C.V. v. Allianz Ins. PLC, 2011 EWHC 268, Case No. 2007 Folio 1396 (Comm. Ct. Q.B. Feb. 3, 2011).

This post written by John Black.

A justice of the UK Companies Court, Chancery Division, recently approved over the objections of policyholder Axa Corporate Solutions Assurance, a scheme under Part 7 of the UK Financial Services & Markets Act 2000 for the transfer of certain insurance business from Sompo Japan Insurance Inc. to Transfercom Ltd. The scheme involved a transfer of predominantly reinsurance contracts made between 1981 and 2003. The contracts suffered from exposure to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and an airplane crash that occurred later that year, and were in run-off since 2003. In sanctioning the scheme, the justice relied heavily on an expert report and determined that the scheme would be fair to the companies’ respective shareholders and the various underlying policyholders. The justice considered, among other factors, the composition of the business to be transferred, the strength of Transfercom and its parent company, National Indemnity Company, the manner in which Transfercom would fund the run-off of the business, and the overall impact on the security of the underlying policyholders that would result from the transfer. In the Matter of Sompo Japan Insurance Inc., [2011] EWHC 260 (Cos. Ct. Feb. 16, 2011).

This post written by Michael Wolgin.

A Justice of the UK Commercial Court (Queen’s Bench Division) has issued an opinion as a result of a trial of a “preliminary issue about the proper construction and the operation of an excess reinsurance policy of professional liability insurance, and more specifically about how it is determined whether the “excess point” that triggers the reinsurance cover has been reached.” Teal Assurance Company Limited alleged that its facultative reinsurance agreement with W.R. Berkeley Insurance (Europe) Limited and Aspen Insurance UK Limited covered certain claims arising from the operations of Teal’s insured, Black & Veatch Holding Company (Teal is a captive insurer subsidiary of Black & Veatch, a large international engineering firm), that were in excess of Black & Veatch’s primary layers of professional liability insurance. The primary insurance covered all of Black & Veatch’s claims, geographically, while the excess facultative reinsurance excluded from coverage all American liabilities. The Court held, contrary to Teal’s position, that the order in which claims should be aggregated for purposes of determining when the reinsurance was triggered (and thus, whether any non-American liabilities exceeded the primary layer), should be based on when those liabilities originated, not when they were paid to the policy limits by the primary insurer. Teal Assurance Co. Ltd. v. W.R. Berkeley Ins. (Europe) Ltd., [2011] EWHC 91 (Comm. Ct. Jan. 31, 2011).

This post written by John Pitblado.

Glacier Re unsuccessfully appealed the decision of an English court allowing Gard Marine and Energy to bring proceedings under their participation in a contract of excess of loss reinsurance. Gard invoked English jurisdiction under the Lugano Convention, contending it brought claims against a London-domiciled participant and that the risk of irreconcilable judgments favored bringing all claims together at once. Glacier argued that its participation in the agreement was governed by Swiss law, so there was no risk of irreconcilable judgments. The appellate court determined that the parties to the excess loss reinsurance contract had chosen English law, and that the reinsurance arose out of Glacier’s participation in the London market. The underlying policy also was governed by English law. Further, the court determined that it did not make commercial sense for one portion of the contract to be considered under English law, and another under Swiss law. For these reasons, the appeal was dismissed. Gard Marine and Energy, Ltd. v. Tunnicliffe, Case No. A3/2009/2376; EWHC 2388 Comm (Ct. App. Q.B. June 10, 2010).

This post written by John Black.

The U.K. Court of Appeals ruled on trigger of coverage issues in a consolidated appeal of cases involving underlying personal injury litigation arising from exposure to asbestos, in light of employers liability policies that generally cover liability for injury “sustained” during the policy year in question. The opinion discusses the unique long latency of mesothelioma, a cancer caused by exposure to asbestos, but which typically does not manifest into disease for as long as forty years or more. The court held generally that the insurer on the risk at the time of exposure — not the time of manifestation of the disease — is responsible for the liability. The ruling is grounded in industry custom, but addresses recent conflicting precedents, generally arising from differing policy wordings over time. The court distinguished a prior ruling, Wasa Int’l Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Lexington Ins. Co., [2009], which involved a conflict between the plain language of a reinsurance contract and a presumption arising from industry custom that insurance and reinsurance cover the same risks, and which ultimately applied the plain policy language as written, despite the presumption. Nevertheless, the court distinguished the Wasa case, noting the varying policy wordings in the employers liability policies at issue. It also recognized the consequences of its ruling on reinsurance liabilities and wordings as well, which it noted have likewise varied over time. Employers’ Liability Insurance “Trigger” Litigation, [2010] EWCA Civ. 1096 (U.K. Court App. Civ. Div. Oct. 8, 2010).

This post written by John Pitblado.

A reinsurer challenged an arbitration award finding coverage in favor of a P&C insurer in six cases where the insurer had paid sums under compromise agreements. A U.K. court confirmed the award in favor of the P&C insurer, finding that the arbitrators’ reasoning was clear, and that their judgment was unchallengeable in law. The underlying claims by insureds involved silicon breast implant manufacturers’ liability, liability of makers of products derived from blood contaminated with HIV or AIDS, asbestos, and environmental pollution. In re Arbitration Between IRB Brasil Resseguros SA & CX Reinsurance Co., [2010] EWHC 974 (Q.B. 2010).

This post written by Ben Seessel.

The defection of three brokers from Global Risks, a Lloyd’s insurance and reinsurance broker, to competitor Tyser & Co., gave rise to claims of breach of contract, violation of employment and fiduciary duties and conspiracy, due to the alleged solicitation by the defectors of clients and employees of Global Risks. The court rejected the claims for different reasons for each claim, including lack of duty, failure of proof and lack of damage. If you are interested in a description of how a Lloyd’s broker works, this would be an interesting opinion to read. Lonmar Global Risks Limited v. West, [2010] EWHC 2878 (Queen’s Bench Nov. 11, 2010).

This post written by Rollie Goss.