Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

You are here: Home / Archives for Carlton Fields

Carlton Fields

Texas Federal Court Enforces Arbitration Award Under the New York Convention Despite Jurisdictional Challenge

by

Respondent argued against the confirmation of the arbitral award as it was based upon the consent of the parties, rather than a disputed hearing, which it contended made the award not subject to the New York Convention, resulting in a lack of jurisdiction.  The Court disagreed that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, citing to Albtelecom SH.A. v. UNIFI Commc’ns, Inc., 2017 WL 2364365 (S.D.N.Y. May 30, 2017). The court noted that “[w]hile the tribunal did not make findings or reach legal conclusions, it made an award that bound parties, with its power.  No binding or persuasive statutory language or case law requires a court to hold that a tribunal must reach its own conclusions, separate from the parties’ agreement, to make a valid binding award subject to the Convention.”

As Respondent did not argue that the award should not be confirmed on any ground but lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, the Court found the award must be confirmed.

Transocean Offshore Gulf of Guinea VII Ltd., et al. v. Erin Energy Corp., No. H-17-2623 (USDC S.D. Tex. Mar. 12, 2018)

This post written by Nora A. Valenza-Frost.
See our disclaimer.

UPDATE ON NAIC ACTION TO IMPLEMENT THE COVERED AGREEMENT

by

We recently posted a Special Focus article on a hearing held by the NAIC’s Reinsurance Task Force concerning the implementation of the reduced collateral for reinsurance provisions of the Covered Agreement between the U.S. and the E.U. The NAIC is attempting to move quickly on the implementation of the Covered Agreement, with a recent flurry of activity.  At the NAIC Spring National Meeting earlier this week, the Reinsurance Task Force approved and forwarded to the Financial Condition (E) Committee a Memorandum report on the February 20, 2018 public hearing, which also contained a number of recommendations for action.  The next day the Financial Condition (E) Committee adopted those recommendations and included them in its report to the Executive (EX) Committee, which “received” the report of the (E) Committee the following day.

The description of the hearing in the report of the Task Force and its recommendations are consistent with the discussion in our Special Focus article.  The basic approach in the Task Force’s Memorandum report is to revise the Model Credit for Reinsurance Model Law and Model Regulation so that they comply with the requirements of the Covered Agreement, and to extend the reduced collateral benefit of the Covered Agreement to reinsurers domiciled in the non-E.U. NAIC-approved Qualified Jurisdictions, on condition that those jurisdictions agree to the group supervision, group capital, and information-sharing provisions in the Covered Agreement.  Qualified jurisdictions outside the E.U. that would benefit from this approach include Bermuda, Japan, Switzerland, and, after Brexit, the United Kingdom.  This portion of this process is anticipated to be completed by the NAIC’s 2018 Fall National Meeting in November of this year.  The concern raised in the context of the public hearing concerning the possible need for “guardrails” due to the increased credit and collection risk to which ceding insurers would be exposed as a result of reduced collateral resulted in recommendations by the Reinsurance Task Force for review and monitoring of the financial and risk impact of the collateral changes, and recommendations for modifications to the Models, risk-based capital rules, and financial statement presentation requirements, if needed, with this portion of the process to take longer, with target completion dates for different aspects of this part of the implementation process of the NAIC’s 2019 and 2020 Fall National meetings.

The Task force made a number of specific recommendations to the Financial Condition (E) Committee, which took the following action:

  1. Adopted the Reinsurance Task Force’s request for the development of revisions to the Model Credit for Reinsurance Model Law and Model Regulation to bring the Models into compliance with the terms of the Covered Agreement.  The NAIC has a process for the development of model laws and regulations.
  2. Adopted charges to the Reinsurance Task Force, the Qualified Jurisdiction (E) Working Group, and the Reinsurance Financial Analysis (E) Working Group, which would have to develop processes to implement the anticipated revisions to the Models.
  3. Adopted charges to the Capital Adequacy (E) Task Force and the Statutory Accounting Principles (E) Working Group to address related reduced reinsurance collateral issues.

Details of the actions of the Financial Condition (E) Committee are found in the Reinsurance Task Force’s Memorandum report.  This process anticipates a very aggressive schedule, with the proposed revisions to the Models (and possibly other changes) being ready for consideration by the Reinsurance Task Force at the NAIC’s 2018 Summer National meetings in August, and by the NAIC’s membership at the NAIC’s 2018 Fall National meetings in November.  One possible timing complication is that any agreement of non-E.U. Qualified Jurisdictions to the group supervision, group capital, and information-sharing provisions in the Covered Agreement might have to be documented through a Memorandum of Understanding with each such jurisdiction, which might take more time to negotiate and finalize.  It was the clear sense of the participants in the public hearing, and of the Reinsurance Task Force’s subsequent Memorandum report to the Financial Condition (E) Committee, that reinsurers domiciled outside the E.U. should not have the benefit of reduced collateral for reinsurance without there being an agreement with their domiciliary jurisdictions with respect to group supervision, group capital, and information-sharing issues.  Absent such an agreement, reinsurers domiciled in non-E.U. jurisdictions would, from the standpoint of the United States and U.S. domiciled ceding insurers, have a more favorable agreement than those domiciled in Covered Agreement jurisdictions.  There is likely to be great resistance to such a potential scenario.

This post written by Rollie Goss.
See our disclaimer.

SECOND CIRCUIT REJECTS MANIFEST DISREGARD OF LAW AS A BASIS FOR VACATING AN ARBITRATION AWARD

by

A panel of the Second Circuit has, in an unpublished summary order, emphasized the high bar that must be cleared by a party seeking to vacate an arbitration award.  The matter arose from the decision of a financial advisor not to follow instructions from a client to transfer all assets from a trust for the benefit of their children to one for the benefit of the client’s wife. After the client passed away, Ms. Pfeffer (the deceased client’s wife) sued the advisor before a FINRA arbitration panel, alleging that this failure to follow instructions constituted a breach of fiduciary duty.  The advisor responded that the client’s instructions were not followed due to concerns that he was not competent, a concern supported by the opinion of two physicians.

The panel denied Ms. Pfeffer’s claim, and she moved to vacate the award in federal district court, alleging that this decision “was procured by undue means, evident partiality, and misconduct because the Panel was intimidated by defense counsel and refused to consider relevant evidence.” The district court confirmed the award, and Ms. Pfeffer appealed.  The Second Circuit emphasized that it “does not recognize manifest disregard of the evidence as a proper ground for vacating an arbitration panelʹs award, and will only find a manifest disregard for the law where there is no colorable justification for a panelʹs conclusion.”  Finding no evidence in the transcript of the arbitration proceeding “that the award was produced by undue means, evident partiality, or misconduct,” or that “the Panel failed to abate defense counsel’s abrasive manner . . . [or] was intimidated by him,” the court found no support for the conclusion that the panel had manifestly disregarded the law and affirmed the lower court’s decision confirming the award.

Pfeffer v. Well Fargo Advisors, LLC, et al., No. 17-1819-cv (2d. Cir. Feb. 15, 2018).

This post written by Jason Brost.
See our disclaimer.

FEDERAL COURT DENIES REINSURER’S POST-TRIAL MOTIONS IN LONG-RUNNING DISPUTE WHICH RESULTED IN A VERDICT IN ITS CEDENT’S FAVOR

by

A federal district court has denied both a motion for judgment as a matter of law or for a new trial and a motion to correct the interest calculation filed by Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company after a jury award of $35 million in damages and $29 million in prejudgment interest against Fireman’s Fund based on its reinsurance obligations to Utica Mutual Insurance Company.

Fireman’s Fund motion argued that there was insufficient evidence that it had breached the relevant reinsurance contracts with Utica because: (1) the facultative certificates at issue did not cover the underlying loss; (2) the follow the settlements doctrine did not apply; and (3) Utica’s late notice either economically prejudiced Fireman’s Fund or was the result of gross negligence or recklessness by Utica.  The court began by finding that the follow the settlements doctrine applied to the facts of the dispute unless Fireman’s Fund could show that Utica’s settlement decisions, by which it allocated portions of a settlement to certain reinsured policies, were objectively unreasonable.  The court found that, based on the evidence presented at trial, a reasonable jury could have concluded that Utica’ settlement decisions were objectively reasonable, and therefore that the follow the settlements doctrine obligated Fireman’s Fund to indemnify Utica for the amounts sought under the certificates.

Regarding Fireman’s Fund’s late notice defense, the court found that a reasonable jury could have concluded that Fireman’s Fund failed to prove that it suffered tangible economic injury from any late notice on Utica’s part with respect to the claims for which it sought reinsurance coverage. The court also found that evidence Utica presented of its routine procedures related to its search for applicable reinsurance and reporting claims to reinsurers was sufficient for the jury to conclude that Utica’s late notice to Fireman’s fund in this instance was not the result of gross negligence or recklessness.  Because the court found the jury’s decisions on these issues to be reasonable and not against the weight of the evidence, the court refused to grant Fireman’s Fund’s motion for either judgment as a matter of law or a new trial.

As regards Fireman’s Fund’s motion to correct the interest calculation, it argued that this interest was based on the faulty assumption that the entire $35 million that the jury found Fireman’s Fund owed Utica came due on September 22, 2008, when Utica first provided Fireman’s Fund with a claims narrative and billings. The court found the motion to be procedurally improper, as the revision requested “would be substantive rather than clerical,” as it required findings regarding each of the multiple days on which Fireman’s Fund’s argued its obligation to pay Utica accrued, findings that would contradict the jury’s finding that Utica provided Fireman’s Fund’s with sufficient proof of loss as of September 22, 2008.  The court found that such a reconsideration of the jury’s factual findings was beyond its authority under Rule 60, and it denied the motion.

Utica Mutual Insurance Company v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company, Case No. 6:09-CV-853 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 28, 2018).

This post written by Jason Brost.
See our disclaimer.