Reinsurance Focus

A UK court has entered judgment in an application brought by Equitas Ltd. and Equitas Insurance Ltd. for an order under section 111 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 sanctioning a scheme for the transfer to Equitas Insurance Ltd. of the 1992 and Prior Business carried on at Lloyd’s. Section 111 is concerned with business transfer schemes. Per the court, the scheme is intended to bring finality to a process which began with a reconstruction and renewal plan promoted and implemented by Lloyd’s in the second half of 1996. In the Matter of the Names at Lloyd’s for the 1992 and Prior Years of Account, Represented by Equitas Ltd., [2009] EWHC 1595 (Ch. Ct. July 7, 2009).

This post written by John Black.

We reported on September 3 of the court approval of a settlement and commutation between Reliance Insurance Company (in liquidation), and Munich Reinsurance America. The liquidation court has also approved settlement/commutation agreements betwen Reliance and the Clarendon group of companies and with XL Reinsurance. The benefit to the estate of the agreement with the Clarendon group of companies is $9.498 million; the benefit to the estate of the agreement with XL Re is $6.325 million. Ario v. Reliance Insurance Co., Case No. 269 M.D. 2001 (Pa. Commw. Ct. July 16, 2009).

This post written by Rollie Goss.

A Pennsylvania state court recently approved a Commutation, Settlement Agreement, and Release (“Settlement Agreement”) between Reliance Insurance Company (“Reliance”) and Munich Reinsurance America, Inc., formerly known as American Re-Insurance Company (“Munich Re”). Under the Settlement Agreement, Munich Re agreed to pay the Reliance estate $73,250,000 to terminate and commute the Reinsurance Agreement and release Munich Re from all liability under the Reinsurance Agreement. The court approved the Settlement Agreement, accepting representations that the Settlement Agreement constituted a fair and reasonable settlement of Munich Re’s past, present, and future obligations to the Reliance estate. Ario v. Reliance Ins. Co., No. 269 M.D. 2001 (Pa. Commw. Ct. July 15, 2009).

This post written by Dan Crisp.

The Rehabilitator of Frontier Insurance Company challenged a New York federal court to reconsider summary judgment rulings that dismissed claims against Everest Reinsurance Company. The Rehabilitator’s claims against Everest sounded in fraudulent conveyance on the theory that payments made to Everest under a reinsurance contract it issued to Frontier were not based on fair consideration because no risk was transferred under the contract. The Court had previously ruled that there was fair consideration due to an antecedent debt at the time the parties entered into the reinsurance contract. The Court allowed reconsideration, but upon review maintained its prior ruling. Mills v. Everest, Case No. 05-8928 (USDC S.D.N.Y. June 8, 2009). Further background to supplement the brief opinion is found in a related Memorandum of Law.

This post written by John Pitblado.

Century Indemnity Company (“CIC”) reinsured The Home Insurance Company (“Home”). Due to Home’s liquidation proceedings, which began in 2003, CIC became fully liable for a $13 million settlement of certain environmental claims for which CIC and Home were both primarily liable under the parties’ respective insurance contracts. CIC, a debtor in the Home proceedings, sought a setoff of $8 million against other obligations owed to Home, for Home’s share of the settlement that CIC paid in full. The New Hampshire Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s order permitting the setoff. Finding that the trial court’s reading of the statute governing setoff was too narrow, the Court cited the remedial nature of the statute, and the legislative purpose of obtaining “full payment from reinsurers despite an insurer’s insolvency.” In Re Liquidation of The Home Ins. Co., No. 2008-407 (N.H. May 27, 2009).

This post written by John Pitblado.

A fraud claim asserted by the New York Superintendent of Insurance against a tire company was barred by the applicable California statute of limitations, since the “discovery rule” did not operate to save the claim. The plaintiff superintendent, in his capacity as rehabilitator of Frontier Insurance Company, alleged that Frontier entered into a reinsurance agreement with Automotive Services Insurance Limited in 1999. ASIL was a captive insurance agency set up by the president of the defendant tire company, Ramona Tire. Under this agreement, ASIL agreed to reinsure Frontier for insurance proceeds paid out by Frontier on policies for a group of independent tire dealers, including Ramona. The superintendent alleged that Ramona defrauded Frontier by purposefully undercapitalizing and underfunding ASIL so as to make it unable to comply with its contractual obligations to Frontier. A suit was filed in 2007. In its motion for summary judgment, Ramona argued that Frontier was on notice of ASIL’s undercapitalization from the moment it began negotiations on the reinsurance agreement. For example, Frontier investigated ASIL’s capitalization prior to approving the workers compensation program in which Ramona participated. This was held sufficient to trigger the discovery rule and run the three-year statute of limitations beginning in at least 2000. Accordingly, the fraud claims were time-barred. Mills v. Ramona Tire, Inc., Case No. 07-52 (USDC S.D. Cal. May 22, 2009).

This post written by Brian Perryman.

There have been many proposals floated for the “modernization” of the regulation of various sectors of the financial services industry. What are the implications of such proposals for the reinsurance industry? In a SPECIAL FOCUS feature, Rollie Goss, blogmaster and chair of a Task Force formed by Jorden Burt to monitor federal regulatory proposals which may affect its clients, discusses generally the major proposals to date which may affect the reinsurance industry. Many of the proposals made to date remain in a fairly conceptual stage, but a few now are progressing to the stage of proposed Congressional bills. The documents discussed in this short paper include:

• a Treasury Department Blueprint for a Modernized Federal Regulatory Structure;
• a draft bill prepared by the NAIC and exposed for comment;
• a draft bill from the Treasury Department titled the Resolution Authority for Systematically Significant Financial Companies Act of 2009; and
• a recently introduced bill, HR 1880 (bill text and bill summary).

For additional Special Focus items, see the new sidebar box with quick links to selected Special Focus items.

This post written by Rollie Goss.

We have previously reported on the procedurally tortured case between the New York Insurance Department, as liquidator of Nassau Insurance Company, and Jeanne Di Loreto to recover assets contended to have been diverted from Nassau. In the latest salvo, defendants New York Insurance Department, William Costigan, and Eric DiNallo, Mark Peters and Andrew Lorin separately moved to dismiss plaintiff Di Loreto’s Complaints seeking to prevent execution of a judgment obtained against her by the New York Liquidation Bureau. The court granted all three motions to dismiss, finding that it lacked jurisdiction over the New York Department, and that the other claims failed to state a claim. Di Loreto v. Costigan, et al., Case Nos. 08-989, 08-990 (USDC E.D. Pa. Feb. 19, 2009).

This post written by John Black.

Hudson, the Superintendent of the Ohio Department of Insurance, in her capacity as Rehabilitator of Colonial Insurance Company (“Colonial”), brought an application for an order, which was subsequently granted, terminating the rehabilitation proceeding of Colonial, authorizing the transfer of funds to the Ohio Department of Commerce, discharging and releasing the Rehabilitator, authorizing the final accounting, authorizing the closing of the estate and the dissolving of the corporate entity, approving the destruction of certain books and records, approving abandonment of physical assets, authorizing the closing of Colonial bank accounts, and authorizing related actions to close the estate or carry out the court’s orders. Hudson v. Colonial Ins. Co., Case No. 03 CVC 01 00597 (Ohio Super. Ct. Dec. 22, 2008).

This post written by Dan Crisp.

The Florida Department of Financial Services (“FDFS”) filed a claim in state court against General Reinsurance Corporation (“Gen Re”) after discovering that in the course of Aries Insurance Company’s (“Aries”) receivership, Aries made improper preferential transfers to Gen Re within six months of the rehabilitation date. Alleging diversity jurisdiction, Gen Re removed the action to Florida district court. FDFS moved to remand the claim to state court pursuant to the McCarran-Ferguson Act. The district court first determined that, under the Florida Insurers Rehabilitation and Liquidation Act (the “Liquidation Act”), the assets at issue are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Leon County Circuit Court. Granting the motion to remand, the district court stated that the federal removal statute does not specifically relate to the business of insurance, found that the Liquidation Act provision vesting exclusive jurisdiction in the state court served to regulate the business of insurance, cited similar findings by other courts regarding such jurisdictional provisions, and concluded that the McCarran-Ferguson Act applies causing the Liquidation Act to preempt the federal removal statute. Fla. Dep’t. of Fin. Servs. v. Gen. Reins. Corp., Case No. 08-443 (USDC N.D. Fla. Feb. 2, 2009).

This post written by Dan Crisp.