Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

You are here: Home / Archives for Michael Wolgin

Michael Wolgin

Update On Amendments To State Captive Insurance Laws

by

South Carolina

South Carolina passed new legislation making numerous and streamlining changes to its captive insurance law. Included in the changes are: modified capital and surplus requirements, a new definition of a captive’s principal place of business, and new oversight, reporting, and examination rules and requirements. (S.C. H.B. 4675 eff. May 18, 2018).

Vermont

Last year Vermont passed House Bill 85, authorizing the formation of agency captive insurers owned by insurance agencies, among other changes. Effective March 8, 2018, Vermont enacted House Bill 694, making various amendments to the captive insurance laws, including standardizing the due dates for annual reporting and premium taxes, designating the Commissioner of Financial Regulation as the agent for service of process for branch captive insurers, and further amending the governance standards for risk retention groups. (VT H.B. 85 eff. May 1, 2017) & (VT H.B. 694 eff. March 8, 2018).

Connecticut

Connecticut passed Senate Bill 377 joining Vermont in authorizing the formation of agency captive insurers owned or controlled by licensed insurance agents or producers. (CT S.B. 377 eff. July 1, 2018).

This post written by Michael Wolgin.

See our disclaimer.

Multi-Million Russian Mall Investment Dispute Remains In Limbo As Ninth Circuit Vacates Turnover Order Requiring Release Of Assets Held In Lichtenstein Trust

by

In a matter between Petitioner Vitaly Smagin and Respondent Ashot Yegiazaryan, the London Court of International Arbitration awarded Smagin about $72 million in damages plus about $20 million in interest and fees. A U.S. district court then confirmed the award. Yegiazaryan then appealed to the Ninth Circuit, taking issue with (1) an order of attorneys’ fees against him; (2) a post-judgment injunction against him, freezing some $115 million in assets; and (3) a turnover order against him regarding a Liechtenstein trust that is now the subject of ongoing proceedings in Liechtenstein courts.

With respect to the grant of attorney’s fees, the Ninth Circuit vacated the award as an abuse of discretion, finding that the district court granted Smagin’s request for attorney’s fees without entering any finding on bad faith. With regard to the injunction resulting in the freezing of Yegiazaryan’s assets, however, the Ninth Circuit upheld the decision, reasoning that the district court identified a clear, case-specific risk that Yegiazaryan might evade the court’s jurisdiction or contravene its judgment by funneling assets through a “reshuffled deck of shell companies and bank accounts across the Caribbean, Cyprus, Monaco, Liechtenstein, or whatever other amicable havens he finds.” Regarding the turnover order, which commanded Yegiazaryan to turn over assets of a Liechtenstein trust, the Ninth Circuit vacated the order as premature. The Ninth Circuit reasoned that its decision was guided by the principles of “adjudicatory comity,” that is, “discretion of a national court to decline to exercise jurisdiction over a case before it when that case is pending in a foreign court with proper jurisdiction.” Smagin v. Yegiazaryan, Case No. 17-56467 (9th Cir. May 18, 2018).

This post written by Gail Jankowski.

See our disclaimer.

Court Applies Arbitration And Continued Performance Provisions Of One Contract To A Separate Performance Guaranty Agreement

by

This lawsuit centered around a contract providing a guaranty of performance in connection with an underlying broadband network access contract. The underlying contract called for binding arbitration of any disputes and required the parties “to continue performing their respective obligations under the Agreement … while the dispute is being resolved.” The guaranty did not contain the same “continuing performance” clause, but it did include a clause incorporating “all other provisions [of the underlying agreement] relating to dispute resolution or arbitration.” The guarantor argued that the “continued performance” clause of the underlying contract only imposed an obligation on its subsidiary, the party to the underlying contract. But, according to the court, “this argument makes no sense.” “[W]hen the parties to the Guaranty agree that they incorporate a clause saying that the ‘Parties agree to perform their respective obligations under the Agreement … while a dispute is being resolved,’ then that incorporation plainly means that the parties to the incorporating contract (i.e., the Guaranty) agree to perform their obligations under that contract pending resolution of any dispute. Otherwise, the incorporation would do no work.” As such, the guaranty’s incorporation of “all other provisions relating to dispute resolution or arbitration” subjected the guarantor to the underlying contract’s continuing performance obligations pending resolution of the dispute. Axia Netmedia Corp. v. Massachusetts Tech. Park Corp., Case No. 17-1607 (1st Cir. Apr. 25, 2018)

This post written by Benjamin E. Stearns.

See our disclaimer.

Georgia Joins Growing List Of States That Allow For Domestic Surplus Lines Insurers

by

Earlier this month, Georgia enacted SB 381, which provides that a non-admitted insurer domiciled in Georgia is deemed a domestic surplus lines insurer, if all qualifications are met, and can sell surplus line products in Georgia. Georgia joins a growing list of states, including Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Illinois, Louisiana, Missouri, North Dakota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Texas, and Wisconsin that have passed similar legislation. Among the criteria are (1) that the insurer possesses a policyholder surplus of at least $15 million, (2) that the insurer is an eligible surplus lines insurer in at least one jurisdiction other than Georgia, (3) that the insurer’s board of directors has passed a resolution seeking to be a domestic surplus lines insurer in Georgia, and (4) that the insurance commissioner has issued a certificate of authority or other written approval of the same. The bill also states that all financial and solvency requirements imposed on Georgia’s domestic admitted insurers shall apply to domestic surplus lines insurers unless otherwise specifically exempted. GA SB 381 (signed 5/8/2018).

This post written by Gail Jankowski.

See our disclaimer.

Minnesota Implements The 2011 Naic Credit For Reinsurance Model Law And Regulations

by

On May 8, 2018, the governor of Minnesota signed H.F. 3622, a bill implementing the 2011 NAIC Credit for Reinsurance Model Law and Regulations. The bill creates a new classification of reinsurer: the “certified reinsurer.” A certified reinsurer does not need to be licensed as an insurer in Minnesota or any other state. However, it must hold assets between 0 and 100% of its reinsurance obligations, depending on its financial stability, and meet recordkeeping and other requirements provided in the bill. The bill allows a domestic ceding insurer to receive credit for risk transferred to a certified reinsurer. The bill takes effect on January 1, 2019, and will apply to reinsurance contracts entered into or renewed on or after that date. Minnesota H.F. 3622 (signed 5/8/2018) (legislative analysis).

This post written by Benjamin E. Stearns.

See our disclaimer.