Reinsurance Focus

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.

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.

We posted previously on the Mariah Re cat bond lawsuit.  The court recently dismissed the Amended Complaint in that action with prejudice.  Rollie Goss discusses this opinion in a Special Focus article titled Cat Bond Litigation: Unambiguous Bond Documents Cause Court To Dismiss With Prejudice Complaint Seeking to Claw Back Payments Made From a Cat Bond Reinsurance Trust.

This post written by Rollie Goss.

See our disclaimer.

There are two interesting regulatory developments of interest to the insurance-linked securities space. First, the Securities and Exchange Commission is considering a proposed rule which would change the regulation of money market mutual funds under the Investment Company Act of 1940. One alternative being considered is to require funds to sell and redeem shares based on the current market-based value of the securities, i.e., that they transact at a “floating” net asset value per share. If funds in cat bond reinsurance trusts or more traditional collateralized reinsurance trusts were invested in such floating value instruments, the value of the collateral might decline and adversesly affect the amount of reinsurance or the amount of collateral available to a ceding insurer. However, the proposed rule exempts from the floating NAV requirement funds which are 80% or more invested in cash, government securities or fully collateralized repurchase agreements. The investment guidelines of most new cat bonds and collateral agreements would come within this exception, and the conservative investment of trust assets should avoid the potential adverse impact of the floating NAV requirement in the current proposed rule.

Second, the European Union’s Joint Forum, which is composed of the EU’s banking, insurance and securities regulators, has issued a report titled Longevity risk transfer markets: market structure, growth drivers and impediments, and potential risks (August 2013). This report describes the three types of transactions that are being used to transfer longevity risk: buy-out transactions; buy-in transactions; and longevity swaps or insurance. Given that the total global amount of annuity and pension related longevity risk exposure ranges from $15-25 trillion, understanding these risks, the alternative risk transfer methods of dealing with them and the views of regulators concerning such issues is important for anyone interested in the potential development of the equivalent of a cat bond market for longevity risks.

This post written by Rollie Goss.

See our disclaimer.

A lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York concerning the administration of the $100 million Mariah Re Ltd. cat bond, which covers severe weather event risks ceded to Mariah Re by American Family Mutual Insurance Company, with an attachment point of $825 million. The Complaint focuses on the modeling and reporting of a particular storm by ISO Services, Inc,. (d/b/a/ Property Claim Service (“PCS”)) and AIR Worldwide Corp. (“AIR”). Payments under the cat bond are based upon estimated loss modeling by PCS, rather than being indemnity based. The Complaint alleges that PCS impropery issued an amended bulletin reporting on the losses resulting from the storm after it had issued its “final report” concerning the storm, and that PCS improperly backdated the replacement report so that it apepared to have been issued prior to the date of its “final report.” It is alleged that as a result of the replacement report, AIR’s calculation of the losses purportedly chargeable to Mariah Re resulting from the storm increased from $62.2 million to approximately $180.1 million. Apparently, American Family withdrew the entire $100 million limit of the cat bond from the cat bond’s reinsurance trust, approximately $37.8 million more than what it is alleged should have been withdrawn.

Disputes over the administration cat bonds are rare. One source has suggested that this is the first lawsuit concerning the administration of cat bonds. This lawsuit raises the interesting question of whether the use of non-indemnity payment triggers in cat bonds exposes ceding insurers to potential litigation risks which an indemnity payment trigger would avoid.

This post written by Rollie Goss.

See our disclaimer.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) recently filed complaints in the Southern District of Florida against Genworth Mortgage Insurance Corporation, Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corporation, Radian Guaranty Inc., and United Guaranty Corporation alleging violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”) by engaging in the practice of paying kickbacks to captive reinsurance affiliates of mortgage lenders in exchange for referrals. All four mortgage insurers have agreed to consent orders, which inter alia (1) prohibit them from entering into any new captive mortgage reinsurance arrangements for a period of ten years, regardless of whether the arrangement includes any payments that might be interpreted as kickbacks, (2) prohibit them from accessing funds held in trust related to existing reinsurance arrangements other than for the reimbursement of reinsurance claims, (3) impose a civil penalty ranging from $2.6 to $4.5 million each, and (4) require them to submit to compliance monitoring and reporting to the CFPB. The fact that these settlements prohibit any captive reinsurance agreements for ten years, whether or not a “kickback” payment was involved, seems to overreach the allegations of the Complaints. See, e.g., CFPB v. Radian Guaranty Inc., Case No. 13-21188 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 9, 2013) (Order granting motion to approve consent judgment and Complaint).

This post written by Abigail Kortz.

See our disclaimer.

There has been significant development in both the cat bond and traditional reinsurance markets so far in 2013, with the emergence of competition between the markets, new bond terms, a cash influx into the reinsurance sector, a re-examination of business strategies and pricing reductions in both markets. Reinsurance Focus Blogmaster Rollie Goss, who has been representing ceding insurers in both cat bond and traditional reinsurance transactions, analyzes these developments in a Special Focus article titled The Developing Relationship Between the Catastrophe Bond and Traditional Reinsurance Markets.

This post written by Rollie Goss.

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.

The NAIC has had a special sub-group reviewing the regulation and use of captive insurers and special purpose vehicles. John Pitblado reports in a Special Focus article on the scope and development of this review.

This post written by John Pitblado.

See our disclaimer.