Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

You are here: Home / Archives for Arbitration / Court Decisions / Brokers / Underwriters

Brokers / Underwriters

DEVELOPMENTS IN TWO PRIOR REPORTED UK MATTERS REGARDING BROKERS AND NORTH KOREA

by

In posts to this blog on September 22, 2006 and February 21, 2007, we reported on developments in a case in UK courts alleging fraud by a broker in the placement of reinsurance and a fraudulent, undisclosed binder addendum that substantially increased the brokers' compensation. The UK Court of Appeals has affirmed decisions of the lower court in this matter. R + V Versicherung AG v. Risk Insurance and Reinsurance Solutions SA, [2007] EWCA Civ. 807 (July 30, 2007).

In a December 5, 2006 post, we described a dispute over allegedly fraudulent reinsurance claims from North Korean insurers. The insurers filed suit in the UK to enforce the judgment of a North Korean court, and a judge has stricken a defense alleged by the reinsurers that they had reached a settlement of the claims. The court found that there was no reasonable prospect that the defense could be established given the absence of a written confirmation of the alleged settlement. Other defenses remain at issue. Korea National Insurance Corp. v. Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty AG, [2007] EWHC 1744 (Comm. July 24, 2007).

CONTINGENT COMMISSION PUTATIVE CLASS ACTION FILED AGAINST LLOYD’S SYNDICATES AND BROKERS

by

A putative class action case has been filed in United States District Court in Miami against a number of Lloyd's syndicates, three Marsh entities, two Aon entities and two Willis entities, alleging wrongful conduct in the payment of undisclosed contingent commissions and undisclosed conflicts of interest in the placement of insurance. The Complaint alleges federal and state antitrust, federal RICO, fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, civil conspiracy, and unjust enrichment claims. The case was filed by a group of law firms, some of which have significant experience as class counsel in insurance sales practice cases. Although reinsurance is not specifically mentioned, and the coverages at issue are direct writings, this may be of interest since it challenges practices in placements with Lloyd's syndicates. Lincoln Adventures, LLC v. Those Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, Case No. 07-60991 (USDC S.D. Fla. July 13, 2007).

CONTINGENT COMMISSION PUTATIVE CLASS ACTION FILED AGAINST LLOYD'S SYNDICATES AND BROKERS

by

A putative class action case has been filed in United States District Court in Miami against a number of Lloyd's syndicates, three Marsh entities, two Aon entities and two Willis entities, alleging wrongful conduct in the payment of undisclosed contingent commissions and undisclosed conflicts of interest in the placement of insurance. The Complaint alleges federal and state antitrust, federal RICO, fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, civil conspiracy, and unjust enrichment claims. The case was filed by a group of law firms, some of which have significant experience as class counsel in insurance sales practice cases. Although reinsurance is not specifically mentioned, and the coverages at issue are direct writings, this may be of interest since it challenges practices in placements with Lloyd's syndicates. Lincoln Adventures, LLC v. Those Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, Case No. 07-60991 (USDC S.D. Fla. July 13, 2007).

UK COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMS DECISION IN FAVOR OF BROKER

by

In a November 7, 2006 post to this blog, we reported on a decision of the UK Commercial Court rejecting claims against a reinsurance broker. The UK Court of Appeals has affirmed the Commercial Court’s decision, based in part upon there being inadequate evidence that the losses complained of were caused by the alleged misconduct of the broker. To reach the loss causation issue, however, the Court affirmed the holding below that the broker had a continuing duty of disclosure to the cedent after the reinsurance had been issued, which is an important point. This opinion contains an interesting discussion of the role of brokers in the insurance and reinsurance markets, especially where the same broker places “back-to-back” insurance and reinsurance coverage. The Court's approach to this kind of situation is illustrated by its statement that “[t]he role of an insurance broker is notoriously anomalous for its inherent scope for engendering conflict of interest in the otherwise relatively tidy legal world of agency.” Opinion, paragraph 60. HIH Casualty & General Insurance Limited v. JLT Risk Solutions Limited, [2007] EWCA Civ. 710 (July 12, 2007).

DISTRICT COURT DISMISSES REINSURER’S DEFAMATION COUNTERCLAIM

by

Plaintiff, Missouri Professional Mutual (“MPM”) filed this suit alleging that the defendant, MRC Reinsurance (“MRC”), breached a broker agreement with the plaintiff in connection with defendant’s procurement of reinsurance on MPM’s behalf. MRC filed a counterclaim for defamation. The allegedly defamatory statements were said to assert that MRC was improperly and unethically withholding information from plaintiff. One of the allegedly defamatory statements cited in the opinion stated “…the unprofessional manner in which the MPM account has been handled clearly rests with you and ultimately your firm[.]”

The district court found that the statements, which conveyed “complaints of dissatisfaction with the handling of plaintiff’s file” were clearly capable of a meaning that was not defamatory. As such, the court “readily conclude[d] that the statements are not defamatory as a matter of law” Missouri Professionals Mutual v. MRC Reinsurance Services, Case No. 07-739 (E.D. Mo. July 12, 2007).