• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

  • About
    • Events
  • Articles
    • Treaty Tips
    • Special Focus
    • Market
  • Contact
  • Exclusive Content
    • Blog Staff Picks
    • Cat Risks
    • Regulatory Modernization
    • Webinars
  • Subscribe
You are here: Home / Arbitration / Court Decisions / Reinsurance Claims / CASE UPDATE: REINSURER LIABLE FOR COMPENSATORY AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES

CASE UPDATE: REINSURER LIABLE FOR COMPENSATORY AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES

October 10, 2007 by Carlton Fields

The Oklahoma Insurance Commissioner, in her capacity as the court-appointed receiver of Hospital Casualty Company (“HCC”), brought this action against Employers Reinsurance Corporation (“ERC”) contending that HCC was entitled to recover from ERC for certain claims under reinsurance policies issued by ERC in HCC’s favor. The court recently ruled upon cross motions for summary judgment.

The Mulberry Claim: HCC issued a $1 million primary policy and a $5 million excess policy to Amity Care Corp., a nursing home company. ERC reinsured the excess policy. Amity was sued by the estate of Bonnie Mulberry, a nursing home resident. The case settled for over $1 million dollars. HCC sought indemnity from ERC, but ERC denied the claim asserting that public policy prohibited insurance coverage for punitive damages. The court ruled that the ERC was liable for the excess insurer’s entire share of the settlement because it was unclear which claims the jury relied upon in its determination that punitive damages should be awarded.

The Hepatitis Claim: HCC issued primary and excess general liability policies to Norman Regional Hospital over several years. HCC reinsured the excess policies with ERC. A number of lawsuits including a class action were filed against the hospital by patients exposed to or infected by hepatitis between 1999 and 2002. To settle the claims, NRH agreed to pay $11 million dollars, with HCC providing $8 million. The issue raised in this case was the proper allocation of the $8 million between the relevant policy years. ERC argued that the parties intended to allocate $3 million to the 2000-2001 policy year and $5 million to the 2001-2002 policy years, thereby exhausting both the primary and excess coverage in the 2001-2002 year. The judge agreed, pointing to the undisputed fact that this is what HCC intended.

Claims Expenses: The court further ruled that the reinsurer, ERC, was not obligated to pay additional costs because the excess insurer did not pay or incur any claim expenses in its capacity as the excess insurer. State of Oklahoma ex rel. Kim Holland v. Employers Reinsurance Corp., No. Civ-06-0426-HE (W.D. Okla. Sept. 13, 2007). A prior post dealing with the relationship between this case and the liquidation proceeding appear in this blog on September 20, 2006.

Filed Under: Reinsurance Claims

Primary Sidebar

Carlton Fields Logo

A blog focused on reinsurance and arbitration law and practice by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Focused Topics

Hot Topics

Read the results of Artemis’ latest survey of reinsurance market professionals concerning the state of the market and their intentions for 2019.

Recent Updates

Market (1/27/2019)
Articles (1/2/2019)

See our advanced search tips.

Subscribe

If you would like to receive updates to Reinsurance Focus® by email, visit our Subscription page.
© 2008–2025 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · Disclaimers and Conditions of Use

Reinsurance Focus® is a registered service mark of Carlton Fields. All Rights Reserved.

Please send comments and questions to the Reinsurance Focus Administrators

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.