Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

You are here: Home / Archives for Rob DiUbaldo

Rob DiUbaldo

MISSOURI COURT HOLDS ARBITRATION CLAUSE IN INSURANCE CONTRACT UNENFORCEABLE AS AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY AND UNDER GOVERNING LAW

by

A Missouri district court recently held a mandatory arbitration provision was unenforceable in an insurance coverage dispute after an electrician was injured on the job and won an uncontested judgment in state court against Solaris Power Services (“Solaris”). His employer was insured by Liberty Mutual and had excess insurance through AEGIS. The plaintiffs in the present case, including Solaris, sued both insurers and alleged they should have been additional insureds under both policies and their coverage claims were wrongly denied. AEGIS moved to stay the proceedings and compel arbitration pursuant to a mandatory arbitration provision in its excess insurance policy. The various parties disputed which state’s law applied. The court ultimately denied the motion, holding the mandatory arbitration provision was unenforceable.

First, the court concluded the arbitration clause was unenforceable as it contravened Missouri public policy. Missouri choice of law rules allow for the application of another state’s law as long as the law “is not contrary to a fundamental policy of Missouri.” Application of North Dakota law (as advocated for by AEGIS) or any other state’s law that would enforce the arbitration provision was inappropriate as it would contravene Missouri law prohibiting mandatory arbitration clauses in insurance contracts.

Next, the court concluded that even under a traditional choice of law analysis, the arbitration clause was still unenforceable. Missouri choice of law for insurance coverage disputes provides certain factors to consider in determining what law to apply, “[i]n the absence of effective choice of law by the parties.” Here, the court found the insurance policy contained an effective choice of law provision where it stated construction “in accordance with the laws of the jurisdiction in which the situation forming the basis for the controversy arose.” The accident’s location in Kansas therefore dictated Kansas law governed. Because arbitration provisions in insurance contracts are unenforceable under Kansas law, the court reached the same conclusion it previously did that the provision was unenforceable.

Simon v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., Case No. 17-152 (W.D. Mo. Dec. 8, 2017).

This post written by Thaddeus Ewald .

See our disclaimer.

CALIFORNIA DOI AMENDS REGULATION OF REINSURANCE

by

The California Department of Insurance (DOI) has adopted a set of amendments, effective January 1, 2018, to its regulations regarding reinsurance accounting, agreements and oversight. These changes were made to conform the regulations with the requirements of the federal Nonadmitted and Reinsurance Reform Act (NRRA), changes to the California Insurance Code, NAIC Model #787, and the practices of the DOI.

The amendments include several changes that clarify which regulations apply only to California domestic insurers versus which apply to both domestic and foreign (i.e., domiciled outside of California) insurers. This is a response to the preemption by the NRRA of certain state laws regarding reinsurance agreements when applied to nondomestic insurers. Among other things, the amendments make it clear that foreign insurers no longer have to file indemnity reinsurance transactions for commissioner approval. The amendments also include changes conforming the regulations to a 2013 change in the California Insurance Code that prevents the Commissioner from denying financial statement credit to a foreign ceding insurer if that credit is recognized by the ceding insurer’s domestic state and that state’s solvency requirement have been accredited by the NAIC or are substantially similar to the NAIC standards.

The largest additions made by the amendments adopt NAIC Model #787, which the NAIC created to establish uniform minimum standards for securing the obligations under captive reinsurance treaties and reserve financing arrangements. Model #787 is expected to become part of the NAIC’s accreditation standards within the next few years, and the adoption of its provisions in these regulations is intended to ensure that California will meet those accreditation standards whenever that occurs.

Additionally, in the section of the regulations providing that a domestic insurer must generally “retain at least 10% of direct premium written per line of business,” the amendments replace the phrase “per line of business” with “per reinsurance agreement,” as the Commissioner has historically exercised his discretion to apply this retention requirement to reinsurance agreements as a whole, which often include multiple lines of business. Further, the amendments remove all references to and requirements for “volume insurers,” a concept that no longer exists under California law.

Cal. Code Regs. tit. 10, §§ 2303 – 2303.29; Cal. Office of Administrative Law, 2017-1012-04 (Nov. 27, 2017); Cal. Dept. of Ins., Initial Statement of Reasons, Reinsurance Oversight, REG-2016-00024 (May 1, 2017)

This post written by Jason Brost.

See our disclaimer.

NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS HOLDS THERE IS NO PRESUMPTION OF EXPENSE-INCLUSIVE CAPS IN LIABILITY LIMIT CLAUSES IN FACULTATIVE REINSURANCE CERTIFICATES

by

The New York Court of Appeals recently answered in the negative a question certified to it by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit regarding prior precedent and whether per occurrence liability limits in facultative reinsurance contracts cap all obligations of the reinsurer, including for expenses such as defense costs. In doing so, the state’s highest court reiterated that general principles of contract construction apply to reinsurance contracts.

Specifically, the Second Circuit asked whether the New York Court of Appeals’ 2004 decision in Excess Ins. Co. v. Factory Mut. Ins. Co.:

“impose[d] either a rule of construction, or a strong presumption, that a per occurrence liability cap in a reinsurance contract limits the total reinsurance available under the contract to the amount of the cap regardless of whether the underlying policy is understood to cover expenses such as, for instance, defense costs?”

In the underlying Second Circuit case, the cedent (“Century”) billed its reinsurer (“Global”) over $82,000 in loss and over $244,000 in expenses for a particular claim, even though the certificate’s stated limit was $250,000. Citing Excess, Global argued the $250,000 limit operated as a cap on its ultimate reinsurance obligations, while Century argued the cap applied only to loss (indemnity) and that Global was still responsible to cover expenses in addition to the limit.

The court began its analysis with a detailed explanation of its decision in Excess. There, the court interpreted the limitations clause in a facultative reinsurance certificate to operate an expense-inclusive cap. In the decade-plus since the Excess decision, however, some courts have interpreted the ruling to mean that third-party defense costs incurred by a cedent are unambiguously or presumptively subject to the amount of the stated liability limits in such certificates.

Answering the certified question in the negative, the court rejected that Excess established such a per se rule on expense-inclusive caps. It distinguished the issues presented in Excess and in the underlying Second Circuit case, with the former addressing whether the reinsurance contract at issue’s limitations clause established a cap for both liability costs and expenses or merely liability costs. Specifically, the court noted, the Excess case read the limitations clause in context of the entirety of the reinsurance contract in line with general principles of contract construction. Additionally, the court distinguished Excess on the fact that the expenses incurred were in litigation between the insurer and its policyholder, not costs (such as third-party defense costs) the insurer was obligated to pay pursuant to the terms of the underlying contract itself. Thus, the court concluded that Excess did not address whether similar limitations clauses would require reinsurers cover third-party defense costs in excess of those limits.

The court “h[e]ld definitively” that Excess did not supersede the ordinary rules of contract interpretation that otherwise apply to reinsurance contracts. Thus, under the Court of Appeals holding, New York law does not impose a rule nor a presumption that a liability limitation clause automatically caps all obligations, including defense costs and other expenses, owed by a reinsurer without regard for the specific provisions in the reinsurance contract, and the court answered the Second Circuit’s question in the negative. Global Reinsurance Corp. of Am. v. Century Indem. Co., No. 124 (N.Y. Dec. 14, 2017).

This post written by Thaddeus Ewald .

See our disclaimer.

CUSTOMER FAILS TO SATISFY BURDEN TO VACATE FINRA ARBITRATION AWARD IN FAVOR OF ITS BROKER

by

A federal district court in California confirmed a FINRA arbitration award last month in a lawsuit by Global eBusiness against its broker for alleged mishandling of Global’s margin account. Overall, the court found that Global failed to live up to its burden to justify vacating the award on either of the two grounds asserted. First, the court observed that Global provided no evidence that the panel failed to evaluate evidence pertinent and material to its claims and concluded the procedural decisions complained of were well within the arbitrators’ broad discretion. Second, Global neglected to identify any governing law that the panel allegedly misapplied or disregarded. As an aside, the court likewise dismissed Global’s arguments for vacatur based on the California Code of Civil Procedure because it likely did not apply to the dispute, nor did Global provide sufficient support for their arguments thereunder.

Global eBusiness Servs., Inc. v. Interactive Brokers LLC, Case No. 16-1264 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2017).

This post written by Thaddeus Ewald .

See our disclaimer.

COURT DENIES MF GLOBAL HOLDINGS’ BID TO APPEAL BANKRUPTCY COURT ORDER COMPELLING ARBITRATION

by

On October 30, 2017 the Southern District of New York rejected MF Global Holdings’ (“MF Global”) latest attempt to avoid a bankruptcy court order compelling it to submit to arbitration in Bermuda in its coverage dispute with Allied World Assurance Company (“Allied World”) regarding MF Global’s bankruptcy. The court denied MF Global’s motion seeking leave to appeal the bankruptcy court’s arbitration order and for a stay of the arbitration pending that appeal.

Allied World argued that 9 U.S.C. § 16(b) prohibits interlocutory appeals for orders compelling arbitration, and that the exception to the statute was not satisfied in this case. The listed exception, 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), provides for district court certification of interlocutory orders for appeal to circuit courts but does not apply to appeals from bankruptcy courts to district courts under § 158(a). The court declined to accept that interpretation, instead concluding that § 16(b) was not intended to cover, and did not apply to, decisions of bankruptcy courts. Additionally, the court noted that accepting Allied World’s argument would lead to like cases being treated differently because cases in bankruptcy court could never obtain an interlocutory appeal while cases in which a district court declines to refer the matter to the bankruptcy court could obtain interlocutory appeal. Therefore, the court held, § 16(b) did not bar MF Global’s attempted appeal.

Nevertheless, the court found there were no “exceptional circumstances” justifying an interlocutory appeal of the bankruptcy court’s order. The proposed issue on appeal was whether a bankruptcy plan provision retaining jurisdiction over future and related disputes supersedes pre-bankruptcy arbitration rights, absent an express provision to that effect and when the adversary proceeding began after confirmation of the bankruptcy plan. The court found this issue to be a controlling question of law, even though a resolution on it would not terminate the case, because it would offer helpful guidance for future parties encountering the issue. It also found there was “substantial ground for difference of opinion” based on cases from other courts reaching conclusions contrary to that of the bankruptcy court. Interlocutory appeal was inappropriate, however, because reversal of the bankruptcy court on this issue would not, by itself, “materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation” where the defendant made several independent arguments for why the jurisdiction provision should not be enforced that would each need to be addressed.

Because the court denied MF Global’s motion for leave to appeal, it also denied the motion to stay as moot.

In re: MF Global Holdings Ltd., Case No. 17-7332 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 30, 2017).

This post written by Thaddeus Ewald .

See our disclaimer.