Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

You are here: Home / Archives for Carlton Fields

Carlton Fields

ARBITRATION CLAUSE INTERPRETATION ROUND-UP

by

Following is a summary of five recent opinions of note concerning the interpretation of arbitration agreements and arbitration procedure:

Klein v. Nabors Drilling USA L.P., Case No. 11-30824 (5th Cir. Feb. 26, 2013) (reversing denial of motion to compel arbitration; option in contract to agree to non-binding alternative dispute resolution proceedings did not render mandatory arbitration clause unenforceable).

Noohi v. Toll Bros., Inc., Case No. 12-1261 (4th Cir. Feb. 26, 2013) (affirming denial of motion to dismiss or stay pending arbitration; arbitration clause was unenforceable because it lacked mutuality of consideration under state law, notwithstanding Concepcion).

GGNSC Omaha Oak Grove, LLC v. Payich, Case No. 12-2592 (8th Cir. Mar. 4, 2013) (affirming denial of application to compel arbitration; estate of deceased nursing home resident was not bound by arbitration agreement as a third-party beneficiary where agreement was not executed by decedent’s son in his individual capacity).

Landers v. FDIC, Case No. 27223 (S.C. Feb. 27, 2013) (reversing denial of motion to compel arbitration of claims for slander, emotional distress, illegal proxy solicitation, and wrongful expulsion, in connection with arbitration clause in employment agreement; the “pleadings provide a clear nexus between [plaintiff’s] claims and the employment contract sufficient to establish a significant relationship to the employment agreement”).

MHC Kenworth-Knoxcille/Nashville v. M & H Trucking, LLC, Case No. 2011-SC-000441 (Ky. Feb. 21, 2013) (reversing order denying motion to compel arbitration; state case law holding jurisdiction does not exist for state courts to compel out-of-state arbitration did not apply when arbitration clause provided for choice of law to be the FAA).

This post written by Michael Wolgin.

See our disclaimer.

IN HOT PURSUIT OF PREJUDGMENT SECURITY FROM A FOREIGN NATIONAL CONDUCTING REINSURANCE BUSINESS

by

As previously reported, the Northern District of Illinois recently held that the prejudgment security required by the Illinois Insurance Code is an “attachment” within the meaning of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and was therefore not required of the foreign defendant in that case. The court denied plaintiff’s motion to strike and the plaintiff subsequently moved to amend or correct the court’s order. The court stood by its decision in two additional orders: 1) denying plaintiff’s motion to amend the order because plaintiff failed to establish any misapprehension of the case law, and 2) granting defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint for an order compelling arbitration for failure to state a claim. The court determined that the plaintiff could not compel arbitration because the assignment agreement that gave plaintiff limited rights to collect certain debts did not also assign the rights and duties under the reinsurance treaties with the defendants, which included the arbitration clauses. The plaintiff has appealed the December 13, 2012 Order concerning pre-hearing security and the February 5, 2013 Order denying the request to amend the December Order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Pine Top Receivables of Illinois, LLC v. Banco de Seguros del Estado, Case No. 12-6357 (USDC N.D. Ill.)

This post written by Abigail Kortz.

See our disclaimer.

UPDATE ON CAPTIVE INQUIRIES

by

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.

COURT COMPELS PRODUCTION OF CFPB INVESTIGATION DOCUMENTS IN DISPUTE OVER ALLEGED REINSURANCE KICKBACKS

by

A putative class of plaintiffs brought an action against PHH Corporation, alleging violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, arising from a purported scheme of alleged “kickbacks” to the defendant mortgage insurer from its captive reinsurer to which transfers no actual underlying risk was transferred. The plaintiffs sought documents relating to any government investigation of PHH. After PHH came under investigation by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, PHH provided certain discovery in the course of the investigation to the CFPB. The plaintiffs thereafter renewed their requests, seeking all documents produced to the CFPB. After defendant refused, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel the following categories of documents produced to the CFPB:

“(1) corporate information and organization charts showing the PHH entities involved with PHH’s captive reinsurance arrangements’ position and the PHH corporate hierarchy; (2) documents relating to the genesis of PHH’s captive reinsurance arrangements; (3) documents describing or relating to PHH’s captive reinsurance arrangements and how they operated; (4) financial statements; (5) contracts and agreements with private mortgage insurers; (6) actuarial, accounting reports, summaries, audits and statements; (7) invoices, bills, receipts, dividends and records of payments from the captive reinsurance trusts or in any way related to PHH’s captive reinsurance arrangements; and (8) disclosures, communications to borrowers regarding mortgage insurance and captive reinsurance.”

Munoz v. PHH Corp., No. 1:08-cv-0759-AWI-BAM (USDC E.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2013).

This post written by John Pitblado.

See our disclaimer.

COURT DENIES BANK, INSURER’S, AND REINSURER’S MOTION TO DISMISS RESPA COMPLAINT

by

Two borrowers filed a putative class action complaint in Pennsylvania federal court alleging that mortgage lender, First Horizon Home Loan Corporation, private mortgage insurers First Horizon had selected, and FT Reinsurance Company had engaged in a “captive reinsurance scheme” whereby illegal referral payments in the form of reinsurance premiums had been paid by the private mortgage insurers to FT Reinsurance, a wholly-owned subsidiary of First Horizon. Plaintiffs alleged that the reinsurance premiums violated the anti-kickback provisions of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and that little or no risk was actually transferred from the mortgage insurers to FT Reinsurance. The court granted motions to dismiss filed by mortgage insurers Genworth Mortgage Insurance Corporation, Republic Mortgage Insurance Company, and Radian Guaranty, Inc., finding that plaintiffs did not have standing to sue because these insurers had not issued them policies. The court denied motions to dismiss filed by the other defendants, however, holding that plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged that the statute of limitations on their claims was equitably tolled and, moreover, that plaintiffs could proceed on their unjust enrichment theory because it was not clear whether plaintiffs’ mortgage contracts cover the same subject as their lawsuit. Barlee v. First Horizon National Corp., Case No. 12-3045 (USDC E.D. Pa. Feb. 27, 2013).

This post written by Ben Seessel.

See our disclaimer.