Reinsurance Focus

The NAIC’s Reinsurance Task Force has been active of late, exposing six different drafts for comment.

Certified Reinsurers

The Reinsurance Financial Analysis (E) Working Group (ReFAWG) developed the Uniform Application Checklist for Certified Reinsurers to help ensure that a reinsurer’s application for certification is complete under the requirements of the Credit for Reinsurance Models. The Checklist also facilitates the “passporting” process, whereby a state has the discretion to defer to another state’s certification and rating of a reinsurer. This latest draft of the Checklist makes changes to the section addressing “Disputed and/or Overdue Reinsurance Claims/Business Practices.” In February 2015, ReFAWG instructed staff to prepare this now-exposed memorandum outlining the group’s responsibilities relating to certified reinsurers and the passporting process.

The comment deadline for these two items is September 15, 2015.

Credit for Reinsurance – XXX/AXXX

Having been charged with creating a new model regulation to establish requirements regarding the reinsurance of XXX/AXXX life insurance policies, the Reinsurance (E) Task Force exposed the draft Non-Universal Life and Universal Life With Secondary Guarantees Credit for Reinsurance Model Regulation. The Task Force also exposed two options for revisions to the Credit for Reinsurance Model Law (#785) to authorize adoption of this new model regulation, Option 1 and Option 2. Key topics that emerged in the drafting of the new model regulation are discussed in an exposed memorandum from its drafting group.

The comment deadline for these four items is September 30, 2015.

This post written by Anthony Cicchetti.

See our disclaimer.

Plaintiffs alleged that AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company violated New York insurance law prohibiting misrepresentations by insurers of their financial condition, because AXA had not disclosed “shadow transactions” in its filings with the New York Department of Financial Services (“NYDFS”). NYDFS defines “shadow insurance” as the use of captive reinsurers in foreign jurisdictions with lower reserve requirements to do an “end-run around higher reserve requirements.” Plaintiffs contended that AXA was not as financially sound as it had represented because in failing to disclose “shadow transactions,” AXA received higher ratings from rating agencies and was able to post fewer reserves thus selling a product that had undisclosed risks and created an “increased risk to the insurance system as a whole. . . .”

The court denied class certification and granted AXA’s motion to dismiss for lack of Article III standing. Plaintiffs did not allege that their premiums were higher because of the alleged “shadow transactions” nor that they had relied upon AXA’s representations in filings with the NYDFS. Violation of rights created by state law (as opposed to federal law), standing alone, does not allege an “injury” sufficient to establish Article III standing. Plaintiffs needed to have established that at least one of them had suffered an “invasion of a legally protected interest which is . . . concrete and particularized” and “actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” The Court also explained that since plaintiffs never alleged that they would not have purchased the policies had the disclosures been made or that they had suffered any financial harm because of the misrepresentations, the alleged risk of harm was only in the future and was a very tenuous risk at that. Jonathan Ross v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Co., Case No. 14-CV-2904 (USDC S.D.N.Y. July 21, 2015).

This post written by Barry Weissman.

See our disclaimer.

We previously posted on a district court’s dismissal, with prejudice, of an Amended Complaint challenging the propriety of payments to the ceding insurer of the Mariah Re catastrophe bond which exhausted the cat bond’s trust account.  The Amended Complaint contended that the payment amount had not been calculated in accordance with the provisions of the cat bond’s documents, and that a lesser amount, which would not have exhausted the trust account, should have been paid instead.  The district court found that the documents clearly set forth the process for calculating the payment amount, and that the payment amount had been calculated in accordance with the contractual agreements.  It therefore dismissed the case with prejudice.  The Court of Appeal, after briefly describing the contractual relationships, simply stated that “[w]e AFFIRM the judgment of the district court for substantially the reasons stated by Judge Sullivan in his opinion of September 30, 2013.”  This result demonstrates the importance of clarity in the drafting of cat bond documents, and may help to reduce whatever uncertainty this lawsuit engendered in the cat bond market.  Mariah Re Limited v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company, No. 14-4062 (2nd Cir. June 30, 2015).

This post written by Rollie Goss.

See our disclaimer.

In this Special Focus, Richard Euliss discusses the recent increased interest by the IRS in auditing small captive insurers.

This post written by Richard Euliss.

See our disclaimer.

In a lengthy opinion detailing extensive findings of fact and law, a New York federal district court entered its order in favor of Harbinger F&G, LLC and against OM Group (UK) Limited in an action stemming from claims arising from the stock purchase agreement for the purchase of Old Mutual Financial Life Insurance Company by Harbinger from OM Group. Under the Agreement, Harbinger was entitled to a $50 million purchase price reduction if the Maryland insurance regulators did not approve a post-closing transaction between Old Mutual and Front Street Re, a reinsurance company owned indirectly by Harbinger, and if Harbinger fulfilled certain other conditions precedent. Harbinger was required to prepare and file certain approval documentation in the form agreed to by the parties, to use reasonable best efforts to obtain governmental approval for the reinsurance transaction and, if the transaction was not approved, Harbinger was required to engage in certain remedial efforts. When the post-closing transaction was not approved but OM Group failed to make the purchase price reduction payment, Harbinger sued. After holding a bench trial on those issues not disposed of on summary judgment, the trial court entered judgment in favor of Harbinger but found OM Group was entitled to the payment of certain fees from Harbinger. “>Harbinger F&G, LLC v. OM Group (UK) Limited, Case No. 12 Civ. 05315 (CRK) (USDC S.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2015).

This post written by Leonor Lagomasino.

See our disclaimer.

At the November 17, 2014 meeting of the Valuation of Securities Task Force of the NAIC’s Financial Condition (E) Committee, a proposal was received from the North American CRO [Chief Risk Officers] Council to modify the capital treatment for catastrophe bonds held by life insurance companies, to encourage life insurance companies to purchase cat bonds.  A slide presentation accompanied the proposal.  The proposal contended that a revised RBC treatment for cat bonds might have the following benefits:

• property and casualty insurers would benefit from a larger and more stable source of capital, thereby reducing their cost of capital;
• life insurers would benefit from improved risk-adjusted asset returns as natural catastrophe risk and systemic investment risk are largely uncorrelated and, as a result, can provide a diversification benefit;
• a lower cost of capital for property and casualty insurers could improve the availability and affordability of insurance products, thereby benefiting property and casualty customers;
• life insurance customers would benefit from improved risk-adjusted returns; and
• regulators’ solvency concerns would diminish as greater diversification is introduced into the system.

The task force exposed this proposal for comment for a sixty day period expiring January 16, 2015.  It is not clear whether the Task Force will revisit this proposal at its March meeting.

This post written by Rollie Goss.

See our disclaimer.

One hot topic in the reinsurance industry over the last year or two has been the influx and role of alternative capital.  In a Special Focus article titled Alternative Capital Proving That For Reinsurers, Size Does Not Matter, Bob Shapiro and Scott Shine explore some of the issues in this area.

This post written by Rollie Goss.

See our disclaimer.

At its December 11, 2014 meeting, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) approved seven foreign countries as Qualified Jurisdictions so that reinsurers licensed and domiciled in those jurisdictions will be eligible for reinsurance collateral reduction requirements under NAIC’s Credit for Reinsurance Model Law. Four of those jurisdictions – Bermuda, Germany, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom, were previously on NAIC’s list of Conditional Qualified Jurisdictions. Effective January 1, 2015, these four, along with Japan, Ireland and France, will be full Qualified Jurisdictions subject to a 5-year term, after which they will be re-evaluated under the provisions of the Qualified Jurisdiction Process.

NAIC also adopted the Revised Insurance Holding System Regulatory Act and Actuarial Guideline 48. The Act, in part, updates the model to clarify the group-wide supervisor for a defined class of internationally active insurance groups. AG 48 establishes national standards regarding certain captive reinsurance transactions and includes regulation of the types of assets held in a backing insurer’s statutory reserve. AG 48 takes effect in 2015. NAIC issued a news release on its actions, which can be found here.

This post written by Renee Schimkat.

See our disclaimer.

In 2003 and 2004, the Internal Revenue Service disallowed deductions taken by SHI Group, a subsidiary of the Swedish company Securitas AB, for insurance expenses related to a captive insurance arrangement established by Securitas AB. SHI Group, which maintained an office in California, petitioned the disallowance of these deductions in the United States Tax Court. The Internal Revenue Code permits deductions for insurance premiums as business expenses. Although the insurance premiums may be deductible, amounts placed in reserve as self-insurance are not and can only be deducted at the time the loss for which the reserve was established is actually incurred. While neither the Code nor the regulations define insurance, courts have looked primarily to four critieria in deciding whether an arrangement constitutes insurance for income tax purposes: (1) the arrangement must involve insurable risks; (2) the arrangement must shift the risk of loss to the insurer; (3) the insurer must distribute the risk of loss to the insurer; and (4) the arrangement must be insurance in the commonly accepted sense. Based on the complicated facts before it, the Tax Court determined that the captive arrangement at issue constituted insurance, allowing deductions for the related expenses. Securitas Holding, Inc. v. Commissioner, No. 21206-10, T.C. Memo 2014-225 (U.S.T.C. Oct. 29, 2014).

This post written by Leonor Lagomasino.

See our disclaimer.

In July of this year, the State Corporation Commission of the Commonwealth of Virginia issued an Order declaring Southern Title Insurance Company insolvent and ordering its liquidation. Among other things, the Order authorized the receiver to use approximately $10 million of its assets “to enter into contracts of reinsurance to pay all policyholder claims.” The Order also set a Claims Filing Deadline and established other procedures and guidelines for the liquidation. Commonwealth ex rel. State Corp. Comm’n v. Southern Title Ins. Co., No. INS-2011-00239 (Va. State Corp. Comm’n July 28, 2014).

This post written by Catherine Acree.

See our disclaimer.