Reinsurance Focus

Alabama, Pennsylvania, and Louisiana have joined the ranks of several other states that have adopted regulations nearly identical to the NAIC Credit for Reinsurance Model Regulation, which allows a ceding insurer to receive a credit for reinsurance as an asset or reduction from liability when insurance is ceded to a reinsurer that meets certain requirements. Alabama’s Credit for Reinsurance Regulation passed the House and the Senate on April 18, 2013 and May 2, 2013, respectively, and takes effect on January 1, 2014. H. B. 199, Reg. Sess. (Ala. 2013). Pennsylvania amended its Requirements for Qualified and Certified Reinsurers on May 25, 2013 with an effective date of June 24, 2013 to mirror recent amendments to the NAIC Model Regulation. Pa. Ins. Dep’t., Requirements for Qualified and Certified Reinsurers, 43 Pa.B. 2816 (May 25, 2013). Louisiana passed a bill effective May 23, 2013 which allows reinsurance credits to captive insurers under certain conditions. S. B. 120, Reg. Sess. (La. 2013).

This post written by Abigail Kortz.

See our disclaimer.

On April 24, 2013, the Iowa State Senate adopted a Credit for Reinsurance Act that becomes effective January 1, 2014. On March 20, 2013, the Maryland State Senate adopted Senate Bill 777, an Act concerning “Insurance – Ceding Insurers and Reinsurance,” which takes effect June 1, 2013. The language of both Acts closely tracks that of the NAIC Credit for Reinsurance Model Law, which allows a ceding insurer to receive a credit for reinsurance when insurance is ceded to a reinsurer that meets certain requirements. Senate File 182, 85th Gen. Assembly (IA Apr. 24, 2013); Senate Bill 777, Gen. Assembly (MD 2013). A staff summary provides an analysis of the Maryland act.

This post written by Abigail Kortz.

See our disclaimer.

As previously reported on this blog, the Connecticut Insurance Department amended its Credit for Reinsurance law to align with the NAIC Credit for Reinsurance Model Law with an effective date of October 1, 2012. On March 1, 2013, the Department issued a bulletin which provides practical guidance to insurers seeking to become credited reinsurers in Connecticut. The bulletin sets forth the requirements for certification eligibility and includes a checklist addressing those requirements, which must be submitted along with the application for certification. State of Conn. Ins. Dep’t., Requirements to Become a Connecticut Certified Reinsurer, Bulletin No. FS-25 (Mar. 1, 2013).

This post written by Abigail Kortz.

See our disclaimer.

As previously reported by Jorden Burt, LLP, the New York Department of Financial Services published a notice of proposed rulemaking regarding changes to New York’s Credit for Reinsurance regulations in November 2012. The proposed changes were published and took effect on March 20, 2013. Missouri also recently introduced a bill that will change its credit for reinsurance regulations effective January 1, 2014. The changes authorize a reduction in the required statutory trusteed surplus for reinsurers who discontinue underwriting new business for at least three years, provides credit for reinsurance ceded to credited insurers and eligibility requirements for certification, and requires ceding insurers to take steps to diversify their reinsurance programs. Both the New York and Missouri amendments are based upon the NAIC Credit for Reinsurance Model Law and Regulations. N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 11, § 125 (2013); S.B. 60, 97th Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Mo. 2013).

This post written by Abigail Kortz.

See our disclaimer.

In a case that has been litigated since 2004, and on which we have frequently reported, the New York Attorney General (“NYAG”) has attempted to block progress toward resolution by filing an objection to the pending settlement between class plaintiffs and a group of defendants. The NYAG asserts that the settlement is “unfair and inadequate” because it does not take into account an allegedly fraudulent finite reinsurance transaction between AIG and General Reinsurance Corp. The court found that the NYAG lacks standing to object, both under the Class Action Fairness Act and constitutional standing requirements, and denied the NYAG’s request for intervention taking into consideration the interest of the settlement class to resolve the matter without further delay. The court did, however, entertain the NYAG’s concerns about misrepresentations in the Class Notice regarding findings from the plaintiffs’ loss causation expert and ordered a Supplemental Notice to be sent out, which includes an additional opportunity to opt out of the settlement class. The Fairness Hearing for the proposed settlement is set for April 10, 2013. In re American International Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-cv-8141 (USDC S.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 2013).

This post written by Abigail Kortz.

See our disclaimer.

We have previously posted on the NAIC’s pending inquiries into the appropriateness of the use of captives. There are two recent developments of note with respect to such issues. First, the NAIC’s subgroup which has been conducting an inquiry has exposed for public comment a revised version of its white paper titled Captives and Special Purpose Vehicles. This draft does not resolve all of the disagreements evident in prior discussions of these issues at the NAIC, calling for further study with respect to some issues. The comment period for this document ends April 29, 2013. Second, the Treasury’s Federal Insurance Office (“FIO”) has formed a task force, headed by District of Columbia Insurance Commissioner William White, to examine the national implications of the use or possible abuse of captives and special purpose vehicles by life insurance companies. This represents a new direction for the FIO, and the reason for this shift is not readily apparent. Although the FIO has been involved mostly in international issues so far, and the NAIC white paper does identify its inability to regulate offshort capitves as an issue, it is unclear whether the FIO’s interest has been prompted by international regulatory concerns.

This post written by Rollie Goss.

See our disclaimer.

After more than four years of litigation, a class action suit brought against Washington Mutual comes to a close with an unopposed class settlement in the amount of $4 million, which includes $1.2 million for attorneys’ fees and litigation costs. The class action involved allegations that defendants received kickbacks from private mortgage insurers to whom they referred borrowers that exceeded the value of reinsurance services provided by defendants to those insurers. The Eastern District of Pennsylvania determined that class settlement was fair and reasonable because continued litigation would be complex, expensive, and lengthy since formal discovery would still need to be completed. The court also concluded that plaintiffs ran the risk of losing on summary judgment or at trial because resolving the issue of whether the reinsurance agreements adequately transferred risk to the defendants would depend on a battle of the experts. Finally, the court reasoned that there was a strong likelihood a class would not be certified outside of settlement because the defendants had potentially viable defenses that could not adequately be litigated on a class-wide basis. The court approved the class settlement and the award of attorney’s fees and costs in separate orders. Alexander v. Washington Mutual, Inc., Case No. 07-4426 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 4, 2012).

This post written by Abigail Kortz.

See our disclaimer.

Virginia’s Bureau of Insurance issued guidelines for implementation of the Commonwealth’s credit for reinsurance law. The Bureau’s December 13, 2012 Administrative Letter 2012-11 (the “Letter”) lists the basic criteria the Bureau will rely on in making determinations as to whether a domestic ceding insurer can take credit for reinsurance, based on the reinsurer qualifying as: (1) a licensed Virginia insurer in good standing, (2) an accredited Virginia reinsurer with at least $20 million surplus, (3) a reinsurer licensed in a state with similar credit laws and at least $20 million surplus, (4) a single assuming insurer with a trust account and at least $20 million surplus, (5) a participant in an association of unincorporated underwriters and at least $100 million surplus, (6) a participant in an association of incorporated underwriters with aggregate surplus of $10 billion and a joint trusteed surplus of at least $100 million; or (7) a reinsurer certified in Virginia with a surplus of $250 million, domiciled and licensed in a qualified jurisdiction, and with acceptable ratings from two or more ratings agencies.

The Letter also delineates ceding insurer responsibilities in ensuring the validity of credit reported on their statements, and provides information pertaining to filing requirements and forms.

This post written by John Pitblado.

See our disclaimer.

Effective October 1, 2012, the Connecticut Insurance Department has amended its Credit for Reinsurance law to align with the November 2011 amendments to the NAIC Credit for Reinsurance Model Law. The amendments to Connecticut’s law adopt the NAIC Model Law’s reporting requirements, which require a domestic ceding insurer to notify the Insurance Commissioner when reinsurance recoverables and amounts ceded to a single assuming insurer exceed certain thresholds. State of Conn. Ins. Dep’t, Credit for Reinsurance Reporting Requirements, Bulletin No. FS-24 (Dec. 3, 2012).

This post written by Abigail Kortz.

See our disclaimer.

On December 1, 2012, the NAIC’s Reinsurance (E) Task Force convened at the 2012 NAIC Fall Meeting to discuss the status of several regulatory issues. The NAIC staff reported that 11 states have adopted some form of the NAIC Model Credit for Reinsurance Law and Regulation, which allows for reduced collateral requirements for certified reinsurers. The Model Law and Regulation were approved at the Fall Meeting as optional standards, meaning states may continue to require 100% collateral. The Task Force also exposed its Draft NAIC Process for Developing and Maintaining the List of Qualified Jurisdictions for a 45-day comment period and noted that 4 jurisdictions, Bermuda, Germany, Switzerland and the UK, will receive expedited review. Another discussion focused on a survey of states regarding the Dodd-Frank’s Nonadmitted and Reinsurance Reform Act, which brought to light concerns about how to treat reinsurers that have large segments of insurance business for purposes of solvency regulation.

This post written by Abigail Kortz.

See our disclaimer.