Contract Interpretation

IS A SERVICE OF SUIT CLAUSE SUFFICIENT TO TRUMP AN ARBITRATION CLAUSE?

August 21, 2008 by Carlton Fields

Reinsurance treaties often contain so-called “service of suit” clauses. The clause typically states something to the effect that “in the event of the failure of Reinsurer hereon to pay any amount claimed to be due, Reinsurer hereon, at the request of the Reinsured, will submit to the jurisdiction of any court of competent jurisdiction within the United States and will comply with all requirements necessary to give such Court jurisdiction and all matters arising hereunder shall be determined in accordance with the law and practice of such Court.” Practitioners may wish to consider the interaction of this clause with an arbitration clause co-existing in the same treaty. Specifically, does the reinsurer’s submission to the jurisdiction of the courts take precedence over the right to arbitrate disputes between the parties? Different courts have reached different results, with the different decisions generally being reconcilable based upon varying language in the service of suit and arbitration provisions of different agreements. In Ace Capital Ltd. v. CMS Energy Corporation [2008] EWHC 1843 (Comm. July 30, 2008), the UK Commercial Court held that it does not. The court acknowledged what it characterized as the minority view that the more specific service of suit clause should prevail over a general arbitration clause, where the single issue of the service of suit clause is a “failure . . . to pay” an amount “claimed to be due” under the treaty, and the arbitration clause broadly refers to “any dispute” arising out of the entire contract. However, the court favored an apparent majority view that a service of suit clause is merely an aid to enforcing awards granted to reinsureds through arbitration.

This post written by Brian Perryman.

UK COURT FINDS THAT REINSURED VIOLATES COOPERATION CLAUSE BY WAIVING POTENTIAL LIMITATION DEFENSE

July 30, 2008 by Carlton Fields

In a 40 page opinion, the UK Commercial Court considered a situation in which a Venezuelan insurer, Multinacional de Seguros, provided insurance for a producer of liquid aluminum, aluminum ingots and aluminum cylinders. Multinacional obtained reinsurance from three reinsurers. An adjuster was retained to assist in processing claims, and during negotiations with the insured the Venezuelan three year limitation period expired. The Venezuelan Superintendent of Insurance provided an opinion that the limitation period had not expired, but the reinsurers decided to commence a declaratory action in London seeking a declaration that they were not responsible for the losses, and instructed the insurer to take the same position with the insured. Multinacional sent the insured a letter, however, which the Court found waived any potential limitation defense. The Court found that this action breached the cooperation clause of the reinsurance agreements. Lexington Insurance Company v. Multinacional de Seguros, S.A. [2008] EWHC 1170 (Comm. May 23, 2008).

This post written by Rollie Goss.

COURT ADDRESSES PROCESS FOR REPLACING PARTY-APPOINTED ARBITRATOR WHO HAS WITHDRAWN

May 12, 2008 by Carlton Fields

WellPoint Health Networks and John Hancock Life Insurance Company became involved in a dispute over the interpretation of three documents relating to WellPoint’s purchase from John Hancock of what were termed Hancock’s Group Business Operations. The Purchase and Sale Agreement, Coinsurance Agreement and Administration Agreement all contained arbitration provisions. The issue was whether three loss-producing books of insurance business, the most important of which were heavily loss producing personal accident risks originated by JEH Re Underwriting Management in Bermuda, were included in the transaction. WellPoint demanded arbitration, seeking additional information about these businesses and a declaration of its responsibilities. Hancock counter-demanded for arbitration seeking $42.4 million from WellPoint, which it later “revised” to $464.4 million. Both parties appointed an arbitrator, and when the party-appointed arbitrators could not agree on an umpire, under the terms of the contract the Denver office of the American Arbitration Association appointed the umpire. Shortly after Hancock increased its claim by ten-fold, Hancock replaced its counsel and sought to replace its party-appointed arbitrator. Conceding that it could not “fire” its appointed arbitrator, WellPoint apparently convinced the arbitrator to withdraw, and a dispute arose as to how to appoint a replacement.

Neither the agreements nor applicable law expressly covered the issue. WellPoint contended that it could appoint a replacement, while Hancock contended that it could appoint the replacement under a provision allowing it to do so if WellPoint defaulted in timely appointing an arbitrator. The remaining arbitrator and umpire allowed WellPoint to appoint a successor, who Hancock conceded was qualified under the arbitrator qualification provisions of the agreements. The arbitration proceeded in two phases, with an interim award entered after the initial phase, and a final award entered after the second phase. The panel's conclusion was that the JEH Re business was not included in the purchase transaction, and that WellPoint owed Hancock $26.4 million instead of the $464 million it had requested.

Hancock moved to vacate the awards, while WellPoint moved to confirm. The first issue was whether the award after the initial phase was subject to immediate confirmation. If it were, Hancock’s motion to vacate was untimely. The court determined that the “initial award” was not a final award, and that Hancock had acted timely in seeking to vacate the final award.

With respect to the replacement of the arbitrator, the court held that Hancock had not waived its right to challenge the appointment by failing to seek relief immediately under section 5 of the FAA. The court upheld the appointment of the replacement arbitrator by WellPoint based upon its interpretation of the agreements and the evident intention of the parties that each would appoint one of the arbitrators. The fact that neither the agreements nor the FAA clearly addressed the situation provided the court with discretion, which it interpreted to require it to attempt to implement the intention of the parties.

This is a very interesting, 33 page opinion, which addresses a number of issues of great importance in many reinsurance arbitrations. The Seventh Circuit has addressed some interesting arbitration process issues, and we will watch to see if this decision is appealed. WellPoint Health Networks, Inc. v. John Hancock Life Ins. Co., Case No. 07-943 (USDC N.D. Ill. Apr. 24, 2008).

This post written by Rollie Goss.

REINSURANCE CLAIMS REJECTED; COURT REFUSES TO SEAL CONFIRMATION

May 6, 2008 by Carlton Fields

Argonaut Insurance reinsured Global Reinsurance under excess of loss, quota share and facultative reinsurance agreements. A dispute arose as to whether certain commutation payments made by Global and ceded to the reinsurance agreements came within the scope of the reinsurance agreements, and arbitration was demanded. Background is found in the Petition to Confirm the arbitration award (which is redacted). An arbitration panel decided in favor of Argonaut, finding that the commutation payments were not “claims, losses or settlements within the terms, limits and conditions of the Retrocessional Contracts at issue ….” Copies of the reinsurance contracts and the arbitration award are found in a declaration filed in support of confirmation of the award. The award was confirmed with the agreement of all parties. The court denied a request to keep filings in the confirmation proceeding under seal, finding that there had not been a sufficient showing to overcome the presumption that filings in US District Courts are public. Global Reinsur. Corp. v. Argonaut Insur. Co., Case No. 07-8350 (USDC S.D.N.Y. 2008).

This post written by Rollie Goss.

UNDERLYING INSURED LACKS STANDING TO SUE REINSURER

May 5, 2008 by Carlton Fields

An underlying insured lacks standing to maintain an action against a reinsurer under a contract to which it is not a party, according to a Louisiana district court. Plaintiff, LaSalle Parish School Board, was the insured on a policy of insurance issued by Property Casualty Alliance of Louisiana (“PCAL”). PCAL in turn entered into a contract of reinsurance with Allianz Global Risks. LaSalle Parish School Board filed a complaint against Allianz (and Eagle Adjustment Services) after Allianz failed to pay LaSalle more than $800,000 for tornado damage to LaSalle High School. The complaint alleged claims for breach of contract, detrimental reliance, and negligent misrepresentation. Allianz and Eagle moved to dismiss all claims.

The court granted Allianz's motion to dismiss the breach of contract claim, finding that “LaSalle has no standing to sue Allianz under the reinsurance contract, absent an intent to stipulate an advantage for LaSalle.” The Court also concluded that none of the state statutory exceptions allowing an insured to proceed directly against a reinsurer of its own insurer applied. The court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the detrimental reliance and negligent misrepresentation claims due to Allianz’s direct involvement in working with the insurance adjuster who dealt directly with the school system in adjusting the claim. LaSalle Parish School Board v. Allianz Global Risks U.S. Ins. Co., Case No. 1:07-cv-00399 (USDC W.D. La. April 24, 2008).

This post written by Lynn Hawkins.