Alex Silverman

The High Court of Justice Business and Property Courts of England & Wales refused to sanction a scheme proposed by Prudential Assurance Co. and Rothesay Life PLC to transfer approximately 370,000 annuity policies from Prudential to Rothesay. The scheme was proposed under Part VII of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. As part of the scheme, Prudential and Rothesay entered into a reinsurance agreement to transfer the majority of the economic risk and reward of Prudential’s annuity business covered by the agreement from Prudential to Rothesay. Although the scheme would not change any terms of any policies, the court found that the scheme offered no benefits to the transferred policyholders, who would no longer be entitled to look to Prudential to pay or service their annuities and instead would need to look solely to Rothesay in these respects. The court noted that the scheme was “strenuously opposed” by a number of policyholders, who contended that they selected Prudential as their annuity provider based specifically on its long history as a leading UK insurer, its size, reputation, and financial strength and resources.

On balance, the court concluded that a number of factors weighed heavily against exercising its discretion to sanction the scheme. It emphasized, among other things, the overall fairness of the scheme as between all affected persons, the annuity policyholders in particular. The court found that it was entirely reasonable for policyholders to have chosen Prudential based on its history and reputation, among other factors, and for policyholders to have assumed that Prudential would not seek to transfer their policies to another provider. The court rejected Rothesay’s contention that it would be prejudiced by any decision not to sanction the scheme by refusing it the benefits of the reinsurance agreement with Prudential referenced above, finding that Rothesay entered into the reinsurance agreement knowing the scheme was subject to the court’s sanction and thus was not guaranteed to be approved.

In re Prudential Assurance Co. Ltd. [2019] EWHC (Ch) 2245 (Eng.).

Lamorak Insurance Co. issued excess policies to Olin Corp. and also reinsured those policies with the defendants, Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London. After Lamorak and Olin settled a declaratory judgment action concerning coverage for underlying environmental property damage suits against Olin, Lamorak sought payment from Lloyd’s under the relevant reinsurance contracts. Lloyd’s disputed the reinsurance billings, and Lamorak commenced the instant action. In response, Lloyd’s sought a declaration that it is not obligated to pay expenses that Lamorak incurred in connection with its declaratory judgment action against Olin, even though Lamorak never asked to be reimbursed for such costs. Lloyd’s moved to compel discovery regarding the declaratory judgment costs, for an order setting a deadline for Lamorak to request reimbursement of such costs, or, alternatively, for an order barring Lamorak from ever making such a request. The court denied the motion in its entirety, finding no basis for compelling Lamorak to produce documents about costs it had not asked Lloyd’s to reimburse, nor for setting an arbitrary deadline for Lamorak to assert such a claim in the future. The court also refused to affirmatively bar Lamorak from pursuing a claim for the declaratory judgment costs, as doing so would be to decide a hypothetical legal question before it is arises.

Lamorak Ins. Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, No. 1884CV00200BLS2 (Mass. Super. Ct. June 19, 2019).

The Southern District of New York granted a ceding insurer’s motion to dismiss certain counterclaims by a defendant-reinsurer, finding their reinsurance agreement was never rescinded and that the cedent adequately performed. The decision arose from a captive reinsurance agreement between Employers HR, an entity that provides outsourced insurance to the employees of temporary staffing agencies, and AmTrust North America, the ceding insurer that issued that insurance. As part of the agreement, AmTrust would reinsure the policies it issued with the defendant, Signify Insurance Ltd., a captive reinsurer created by Employers HR. The agreement required Signify to post collateral securing its reinsurance obligations, while AmTrust was required to cede certain premiums to Signify. Upon learning that Signify had not posted the required collateral, AmTrust wrote to Signify demanding that it do so in full within 30 days, otherwise it would terminate the agreement from inception. Signify posted a substantial portion of the security two days later and then wrote to AmTrust advising that it was “accepting” its termination of the agreement. The next day, however, AmTrust withdrew its intention to terminate and demanded that Signify provide all remaining collateral.

AmTrust subsequently filed this action alleging breach of contract and seeking a declaration that Signify is required to maintain its security obligations. In its counterclaims, Signify argued, among other things, that AmTrust terminated the agreement from inception or, in the alternative, that the court should rescind the agreement. AmTrust moved to dismiss Signify’s first two counterclaims, while Signify moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. The court granted AmTrust’s motion and denied Signify’s.

As an initial matter, the court rejected Signify’s argument that AmTrust unilaterally rescinded the agreement by demanding that Signify post all collateral within 30 days, finding a reasonable person would have understood the letter to be no more than a request to cure. The court held that AmTrust’s letter was insufficient to rescind the reinsurance agreement by itself. Signify’s “mutual rescission” theory was also rejected. Although Signify argued it had “accepted” AmTrust’s “offer” to rescind, the court found no such offer was ever made. The court observed that AmTrust merely threatened to rescind in the event Signify failed to cure its breach and that AmTrust had maintained total discretion to rescind regardless of Signify’s consent. Finally, the court rejected Signify’s claim that AmTrust failed to perform under the agreement by, among other things, failing to cede required premiums. While acknowledging AmTrust’s obligation to cede “gross ceded premium” and to remit “net ceded premium,” the court found that these duties were only triggered by a series of events, including AmTrust’s receipt of bank confirmation that Signify increased its collateral to required levels. Because Signify did not allege that it ever posted that collateral, the court held that AmTrust’s duty to cede premiums to Signify never arose.

AmTrust N. Am., Inc. ex rel. Tech. Ins. Co. & Sec. Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Signify Ins. Ltd., No. 1:18-cv-03779, 2019 WL 3034891 (S.D.N.Y. July 11, 2019).