This week we present a two-part posting on changes regarding captive insurer regulation. The competition is on among the states for hosting captives. The competition consists of simpler regulation and lower capital requirements. On May 10, the Governor of Montana was presented with a new captive bill for signature which reduces capital requirements for protected cell captives 50%, from $1 million to $500,000, with a captial requirement of $250,000 for protected cell captives with 10 or fewer homogenous cells. The capital requirement for captives that reinsure admitted insurers issuing policies is also to be reduced by 50%. Other regulatory simplification is included in the bill. An article about this bill appears in the May 21 issue of Business Insurance. Meanwhile, the Arizona Governor recently signed a new bill which lowers the capital requirements for Arizona-domiciled protected cell captive insurers from $1 million to $500,000, and makes many changes to simplify regulation and reduce the burdens of regulation. A summary of the Arizona bill is also available.
Lloyds issues guidance for run-off syndicates
Lloyds has issued a report providing minimum standards and guidance for the individual capital adequacy of syndicates in run-off. This report provides extensive guidance for the management of such syndicates, in order to assist them in achieving the capital standards.
COURT HOLDS DISPUTE OVER SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES UNDER REINSURANCE ADMINISTRATION AGREEMENT ARBITRABLE
Trustmark Insurance and American General Assurance entered into a Reinsurance Administration Agreement with Transamerica Occidental Life Insurance, pursuant to which Transamerica provided administration services. Trustmark cancelled the Agreement, and a dispute arose as to Transamerica’s performance of the Agreement and whether it was entitled to further payments for services that it had provided pursuant to the Agreement. Trustmark and Transamerica reached a “settlement” of the dispute, which later fell apart. There was no written settlement agreement, and although the Agreement contained an arbitration provision, no party sought arbitration of the dispute under the Agreement.
Trustmark sued Transamerica, seeking to compel performance of the settlement agreement. Transamerica moved to compel arbitration. The District Court held that even though there was no written settlement agreement, the arbitration provision of the Reinsurance Administration Agreement covered any dispute “relating to” the parties’ performance of the Agreement, including Transamerica’s claim for further payments under the Agreement. The court therefore compelled arbitration of the substance of the dispute that was covered by the “settlement agreement.” Trustmark Insurance Co. v. Transamerica Occidental Life Insurance Co., Case No. 06-5561 (N.D.Ill. May 1, 2007).
UK COURT DECLINES TO FIND REINSURANCE COVERAGE DESPITE FOLLOW THE FORTUNES PROVISION SINCE DAMAGES OUTSIDE POLICY PERIOD
This case involves a situation in which a U.S. court found that an insurance policy covered a portion of damages incurred prior to and after a policy period based upon a manifestation coverage trigger. The insured then entered into a settlement agreement, and sought coverage from its reinsurers for the amount of the settlement. The resulting reinsurance dispute was litigated in a UK court. The UK court found that even though it was apparent that the insured had acted in good faith and prudently in negotiating the settlement to minimize its loss, the reinsurance did not cover damage that occurred outside the time period of the coverage of the reinsurance agreement. This decision illustrates an important area of risk for companies which may have their insurance and reinsurance governed by different applicable law, whether the laws of different U.S. states, which may have different coverage trigger or damage allocation theories, or the laws of a U.S. state and the UK. Care should be taken in establishing reinsurance programs to attempt to avoid such a scenario. Wasa International Ins. Co. v. Lexington Ins. Co., [2007] EWHC 896 (Queen’s Bench Commercial Court April 25, 2007).
CONNECTICUT SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS AAA ARBITRATION AWARD DESPITE VACANCY ON ARBITRATION PANEL
C.R. Klewin Northeast (“Klewin”) entered into a contract with the city of Bridgeport (“the City”) for the construction of a multipurpose sports arena. After construction was completed, a dispute arose regarding whether Klewin was entitled to additional compensation due to design changes. The dispute was submitted to an arbitration panel pursuant to the contract. Under the applicable AAA rules, the dispute would ordinarily be heard by a panel of three arbitrators. However, when one of the arbitrators resigned due to illness, the two remaining arbitrators chose to proceed with the arbitration over the City’s objection. After 37 days of hearings, the arbitration panel awarded Klewin $6,020,231, plus interest. The trial court confirmed the award.
The City raised several issues on appeal. First, the City argued that the arbitration panel lacked jurisdiction because the underlying contract was procured illegally and thus void. The Court rejected this argument, holding that the defense of contract illegality was a question for the arbitrators, at least in the first instance, because the challenge related to the entire contract rather than just its arbitration clause.
Second, the City challenged the trail court’s ruling that the City waived the defense of contract illegality though its conduct in the arbitration. In upholding this ruling, the Court explained that the City’s attempt to raise the defense on the 20th day of hearings was, in essence, “too little, too late.”
Finally, the City argued that the arbitration panel lacked jurisdiction because it had only two members. In rejecting this argument, the Court noted that in the event of a vacancy, the AAA rules authorize the remaining arbitrators to continue with the hearing “unless the parties agree otherwise.” C.R. Klewin Northeast, LLC v. City of Bridgeport, Case No. 17590 (Conn. Apr. 17, 2007).