Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

You are here: Home / Archives for Carlton Fields

Carlton Fields

FLORIDA OIR REACHES REDUCED COLLATERAL AGREEMENT WITH THREE BERMUDA-BASED REINSURERS

by

Recently, the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation issued a press release announcing that it had reached separate agreements with three Bermuda-based reinsurers. The reinsurers – Ace Tempest Re, Hiscox Insurance Co., and Partner Re – are now authorized to participate in Florida’s insurance marketplace under modified regulatory terms, including lower collateral requirements. The Florida OIR has now authorized a total of six reinsurance companies to operate in Florida under similar modified terms.

This post written by John Black.

SUPREME COURT HEARS ORAL ARGUMENT ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE FAA AND STATE LAW REGARDING UNCONSCIONABILITY OF CLASS ARBITRATION WAIVERS

by

On November 9, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, an appeal from an opinion of the Ninth Circuit. The issue, as framed in the briefs, is whether the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) preempts states from conditioning the enforcement of an arbitration agreement on the availability of particular procedures — here, class-wide arbitration — when those procedures are not necessary to ensure that the parties to the arbitration agreement are able to vindicate their claims. The Supreme Court’s docket reflects the filing of 25 amicus briefs. It is hoped that this case will clarify the relationship between the Federal Arbitration Act and state laws and opinions holding certain arbitration provisions to be unenforceable as unconscionable. The transcript and audio recording of the oral argument are both available. Some vote counters at the oral argument suggested that the questioning by the Justices indicated deference to state law as opposed to the FAA. AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, No. 09-893 (U.S.).

This post written by Rollie Goss.

FEDERAL COURT COMPELS ARBITRATION AND STAYS ACTION UNDER FEDERAL LAW DESPITE STATE LAW PROHIBITING ARBITRATION OF INSURANCE DISPUTES

by

In an action for breach of an insurance policy and the tort of bad faith, the Western District of Arkansas recently compelled arbitration and stayed the action. The court considered whether an arbitration clause in a policy governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) was invalidated by an Arkansas state law that purports to invalidate arbitration clauses “in any insurance policy” in Arkansas. The court held that although the McCarran-Ferguson Act would typically operate to preempt the FAA with the state insurance law, in this case an exception to McCarran-Ferguson existed, namely that another federal law that “specifically relates to the business of insurance” and provides for arbitration (the Federal Crop Insurance Act), applied to the policy at issue and required arbitration. The court also stayed the entire action, rather than just the claim for breach of contract, based on the language of the relevant arbitration clause, on the broad mandate of the FAA to “stay the trial of an action” until arbitration has occurred, and in the interests of judicial economy. Hays v. Rural Community Insurance Services, Case No. 1:10-cv-01020 (W.D. Ark. Oct. 7, 2010) (Magistrate Report and Recommendation adopted on October 26, 2010).

This post written by Michael Wolgin.

STATE STATUTORY BAD FAITH CLAIM AGAINST INSURER DENIED ON BASIS OF CHOICE OF LAW PROVISION REQUIRING APPLICATION OF MEXICAN LAW

by

Deep Sea Financing, LLC filed suit against British Marine as an alleged loss payee under a policy of marine hull insurance issued by British Marine to Dragados Mundiales del Caribe S.A. de C.V., covering a dredge and other equipment owned by Dragados. When the dredge ran aground on an environmentally sensitive reef near Puerto Cancun, Mexico, various claims were made under the policy, including a claim by Deep Sea. When Deep Sea’s written demand was not accepted by British Marine, it filed suit in Georgia state court seeking statutory bad faith penalties. British Marine removed the case to federal court and filed a separate interpleader action naming Dragados and Deep Sea. In Deep Sea’s action, Deep Sea moved for partial summary judgment on its statutory bad faith claim. The contract — which was originally negotiated as reinsurance to a Mexican primary policy that later became unnecessary, and so was converted to a primary policy under British Marine’s typical “London terms,” — nevertheless still included (whether inadvertently or not) a choice-of-law provision requiring application of Mexican law. British Marine argued this provision precluded the statutory claim under Georgia law, and the court agreed. Deep Sea moved for reconsideration, but the court stuck by its initial decision. Deep Sea Financing, LLC v. British Marine Luxembourg, S.A., CV 409-022 (USDC S.D. Ga. Sept. 1, 2010).

This post written by John Pitblado.