Carlton Fields

CEDENT LOSES MOTION FOR REINSURANCE PAYMENTS DUE TO LATE NOTICE AND “UNSATISFACTORY” PROOF OF LOSS, NOTWITHSTANDING “FOLLOW THE SETTLEMENTS” PROVISIONS

November 24, 2014 by Carlton Fields

In a reinsurance coverage dispute involving coverage for an underlying settlement of asbestos liability, a New York court considered whether the defenses of failure to provide prompt notice and failure to provide satisfactory proof of loss precluded summary judgment in favor of the cedent. The cedent relied on “follow the settlements” provisions contained in each of the relevant four facultative reinsurance certificates. The court, however, was not convinced that these provisions entitled the cedent to coverage. One of the certificates, the court found, provided for prompt notice as a condition precedent to coverage. The court ruled that the cedent, which had submitted notice of claim to the reinsurer in 2010, had been required to provide notice of the asbestos settlement “in 2006 at the latest, when the settlement agreement was executed.” As a result, no prejudice from the late notice needed to be demonstrated, and the reinsurer was not obligated to indemnify the cedent for unpaid losses under that certificate. For the three other reinsurance certificates, which did not contain provisions deeming prompt notice a condition precedent to coverage, the court still denied the cedent summary judgment as premature, finding that the cedent failed to demonstrate that it had satisfied the certificates’ requirements to “provide[] proofs of loss in a form satisfactory to” the reinsurer. The court did rule in favor of the cedent, however, with respect to one of three reinsurance billings, where the reinsurer waived its defenses by making an initial payment without any reservation of rights. Lexington Insurance Co. v. Sirius America Insurance Co., Index No. 651208/2012 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 18, 2014).

This post written by Michael Wolgin.

See our disclaimer.

APPEALS COURT VACATES ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STOP ARBITRATION

November 20, 2014 by Carlton Fields

In Milan Express Co., Inc. v. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assur. Co., Inc., No. 14-5193 (6^th Cir. Oct. 24, 2014), the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the district court’s order granting plaintiff’s motion to stop arbitration. The Sixth Circuit determined that the district court’s order determining that arbitrability of the dispute was within the court’s province, which was the basis for granting plaintiff’s motion to stop the arbitration, failed to identify what the district court found to be ambiguous about the parties’ manifest intent to submit all disputes, including disputes regarding the enforceability of any provision, exclusively to arbitration. The Sixth Circuit, relying on Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson,561 U.S. 63, 67–70 (2010) and on a de novo review of the arbitration agreement, found that the parties manifestly intended to submit the threshold question of arbitrability to the arbitrator and not the court.

This post written by John Pitblado.

See our disclaimer.

COURT DENIES PETITION FOR ORDER CONFIRMING FINAL ARBITRATION AWARD AND ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

November 19, 2014 by Carlton Fields

In First State Ins. Co. v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co., No. 13-cv-11322-IT (U.S.D.C. D. Mass. Oct. 21, 2014), a petition for an order to confirm a final arbitration award and entry of judgment was denied. The court determined that although labeled a “Final Award,” the arbitration panel expressed no intention to resolve all claims submitted in the demands for arbitration. Instead, the award focused on the plaintiff’s motion regarding contract interpretation, which directed the parties back to the panel with a proposed schedule leading to a hearing on remaining matters. Moreover, although the panel proceeded to address the issues in phases, the parties did not jointly agree to bifurcation of the arbitration. Rather the record in the case showed that the defendant objected to bifurcation of the issues at an organizational meeting with plaintiff and the panel when it argued that the panel should consider all of the issues before it at the same time.

This post written by John Pitblado.

See our disclaimer.

SEVENTH CIRCUIT DECLINES TO REQUIRE PRE-PLEADING SECURITY FROM URUGUAY’S STATE-OWNED REINSURER AND REFUSES TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

November 18, 2014 by Carlton Fields

The Plaintiff, Pine Top Receivables of Illinois, LLC brought an action in Illinois federal court against Banco de Seguros del Estado, an entity wholly owned by Uruguay. Pine Top claimed that Banco de Seguros owed Pine Top $2,352,464.08 under certain reinsurance contracts. Pine Top’s complaint sought to compel arbitration, and alternately sought entry of judgment for breach of contract. Banco Seguros answered the complaint, and Pine Top moved to strike the answer for failure to post pre-pleading security as required under Illinois’s unauthorized foreign insurer statute, § 215 ILCS 5/123(5).

The trial court held, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed on interlocutory appeal, that Banco Seguros was not required to post security, following Second Circuit precedent which held that an attachment of any sort (like pre-judgment security) was violative of the broad grant of immunity to foreign governments afforded by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.

The Seventh Circuit also affirmed the trial court’s ruling denying Pine Top’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that Pine Top’s rights under the reinsurance contracts, which had been assigned to it by the Liquidator of the defunct primary insurer that originally entered into the agreements with Banco Seguros, were limited to the collections of certain debts, but it was not assigned all rights and duties under the treaties, and thus was not assigned the right to arbitrate. Pine Top Receivables of Illinois, LLC v. Banco de Seguros del Estado, No. 13–1364 (7th Cir. Nov. 7, 2014)

This post written by John Pitblado.

See our disclaimer.

COURT REFUSES TO SEAL “SUBSTANTIVE RULINGS” IN ARBITRATION AWARD

November 17, 2014 by Carlton Fields

A federal court in Michigan was recently presented with a motion to seal the briefing associated with a motion to confirm an arbitration award. The arbitration concerned a reinsurance dispute and had been conducted pursuant to a confidentiality agreement that required the final award and any court submissions be kept confidential. Noting the “long-established legal tradition of public access to court documents,” the court ordered that only limited portions of the Final Award should be sealed – those that identified non-parties. The court refused to seal other portions of the award, rejecting the argument that public filing of the award’s “substantive rulings” could harm the reinsurer’s financial interests. The reinsurer argued that other reinsureds could cite to the blanket pronouncements in the Final Award to support their claims, despite the confidential nature of the arbitration. The court ruled that unlike situations where the arbitration award contains confidential business data or trade secrets and therefore is properly sealed, the request to seal the Final Award in this case was made merely to prevent unhelpful portions of the Final Award from becoming public in an effort to avoid future litigation. The court cited Sixth Circuit precedent holding a party’s interest in shielding prejudicial information from public view, standing alone, cannot justify the sealing of that information. Amerisure Mut. Ins. Co. v. Everest Reinsurance Co., No. 14-CV-13060, 2014 WL 5481107 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 29, 2014).

This post written by Catherine Acree.

See our disclaimer.