Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

You are here: Home / Archives for Arbitration / Court Decisions / Contract Interpretation

Contract Interpretation

REINSURANCE HELD NOT EXCLUDED FROM COVERAGE BASED ON LIABILITY LIMIT AND CLAIM REPORTING PROVISIONS

by

In a dispute arising between Anthem Insurance (now known as Wellpoint) and what the court described as one of its excess reinsurers, Twin City Fire Insurers, Anthem sought defense and indemnification for several state and federal lawsuits alleging improper denial of reimbursement. Twin City denied coverage, arguing that those suits “related back” to the claim preceding its policy period and were accordingly excluded from coverage. An Indiana trial court agreed with Twin City, and Anthem subsequently appealed to the state appeals court. The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that none of the subject policy provisions operated to exclude such coverage. The court held specifically that the reinsurance agreement covered “claims made” and found no basis to read the agreement as excluding coverage retrospectively based on notice of claims preceding the inception of coverage. The court additionally found inapplicable Twin City’s attempt to superimpose the “prior notice exclusion” onto the agreement. Wellpoint, Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., No. 05-2011 (Ind. Ct. App. July 20, 2011).

This post written by John Black.

REINSURANCE DISPUTE REGARDING WATER REVENUE BONDS RESOLVED

by

A dispute over rural water district revenue bonds has reached an end. CIFG commenced an action in the Supreme Court for New York County to recover for payments it made to its insured, Xenia Rural Water District, under a financial guarantee insurance policy which allegedly should have been made by defendant Assured Guaranty pursuant to a reinsurance agreement. CIFG further contended that failure to pay constitutes a breach of the parties’ administrative services agreement. CIFG moved for summary judgment. The Supreme Court granted the motion, finding that the reinsurance agreement clearly allows for exclusion of policies with investment ratings below certain thresholds, even if the policy was inadvertently listed as meeting the threshold requirement at the time. The court, however, also granted summary judgment to Assured on CIFG’s allegation that Assured acted in bad faith. Finally, the court dismissed several of Assured’s affirmative defenses and its counterclaims.

Shortly following the Supreme Court’s order, the parties announced in a press release that they had reached a settlement dismissing the action altogether. Under the settlement agreement, Assured will reinsure 100% of the Xenia policy, and CIFG and Assured will seek to novate the policy to Assured according to the terms and procedures adopted by the parties with respect to the novation of other CIFG policies covered by the reinsurance agreement. CIFG Assurance North America, Inc. v. Assured Guaranty Corp., No. 651090/10 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. June 15, 2011).

This post written by John Black.

CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS RELATING TO GEN RE-AIG FINITE REINSURANCE TRANSACTION VACATED BY COURT OF APPEAL

by

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has vacated the criminal convictions of Gen Re and AIG executives stemming from a finite reinsurance transaction with undisclosed payments, which allegedly was intended to improve AIG’s financial statements without transferring any significant risk. A jury had convicted all of the defendants on all charges. The matter was remanded for a new trial. After hundreds of pages of briefing and numerous arguments of prosecutorial misconduct, erroneous evidentiary rulings and improper jury charges, the Court of Appeals found only two bases for vacating the convictions: (1) the admission of three bar charts which linked the decline in AIG’s stock price to the transaction at issue; and (2) a jury charge “that allowed the jury to convict without finding causation.”

The stock price evidence was interesting because the court found that “the charged offenses here do not require a showing of loss causation ….” Nevertheless, the prosecution sought to use causation evidence “to humanize its prosecution” and show that the transaction harmed AIG stockholders who had purchased AIG stock for their retirement accounts or the college funds of their children. The evidence presented the defendants with a dilemma: to allow the jury to attribute the full stock price decline to the transaction or introduce prejudicial evidence “of other besetting scandals, wrongdoing, and potentially illegal actions at AIG.” The defendants sought to sidestep the problem by stipulating to materiality, but the government refused. The court found that the district court’s admission of the charts was inconsistent with other rulings on the stock price issue, and was prejudicial to the defendants.

With respect to the jury charge issue, the court noted that the defendants did not specifically object to the causation instruction, which was the product of competing suggestions by counsel, but that the instruction nevertheless warranted reversal under the plain error rule, as it “is improbable, let alone ‘absolute[ly] certain[],’ that the jury based its verdict on a properly instructed ground.”

This opinion contains an extensive but relatively concise discussion of the finite reinsurance transaction at issue, and of the fact that low risk finite reinsurance transactions are acceptable, “and have their uses,” unless they violate FAS 113, the so-called 10-10 rule, entail no risk, and amount to fraud. The court described how this particular transaction was deliberately structured to conceal certain credits and repayments from the companies’ outside auditors. The court rejected all but two of the defendants’ numerous challenges, including allegations that one key prosecution witness had committed perjury, although it suggested that the government be circumspect about how his testimony is presented in a new trial. A major “take away” from this opinion is the clear holding that finite reinsurance transactions can be the basis for criminal convictions of the executives involved in such transactions. United States v. Ferguson, et al., No. 08-6211-CR (2d Cir. August 1, 2011).

This post written by Rollie Goss.

COURT OVERTURNS SUBPRIME MORTGAGE REINSURANCE-RELATED BREACH OF CONTRACT RULING

by

In a breach of contract action, Plaintiff Ambac Assurance sought to recover damages for the loss of more than $1 billion from investment accounts created to fund notes it guaranteed issued by a special purpose vehicle established to reinsure term life insurance policies. Ambac alleges that plaintiff J.P. Morgan Investment Management (“JPMIM”) failed to manage the accounts, and instead continued to hold toxic subprime securities in the accounts while its corporate parent (J.P. Morgan Chase) reduced its exposure to the same type of securities because they “could go up in smoke.” JPMIM moved to dismiss based on Ambac’s concession that JPMIM adhered to the contractual limitations on purchasing subprime securities. The New York Appellate Division reversed a New York Supreme Court ruling dismissing the action, and held that, at this stage of the proceedings, the court should have accepted the plaintiff’s allegations as true, given the plaintiff every possible inference, and simply ascertained whether the plaintiff’s allegations evidenced a cognizable cause of action (which the Appellate Division concluded Ambac had done). The case was remanded to the Supreme Court for further proceedings. Ambac Assurance UK Limited v. J.P. Morgan Investment Mgmt., Inc., No. 09-650259 (N.Y. App. Div. July 14, 2011).

This post written by John Black.