A reinsurance contract had what is termed a narrow arbitration provision, requiring arbitration only of disputes relating to the interpretation of the contracts. The service of suit clause provided for the resolution by a court of the failure to pay an amount claimed to be due. A dispute arose as to a claim submitted under the contract, specifically whether payment should be made to the insolvent claimant or its liquidator. A US District Court has determined that since the resolution of that question requires interpreting provisions of the reinsurance contract, the dispute is arbitrable. Railroad Insurance Underwriters v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, Case No. 07-3071 (USDC S.D.N.Y. June 4, 2007).
Contract Interpretation
Bermuda Forum Section Provision Does Not Apply to Insurance Policies that were Part of an Overall Rent-a-Captive Insurance Program
The liquidator of Legion Insurance Company and Villanova Insurance Company sued three companies to recover premiums owed for insurance provided in a rent-a-captive workers compensation insurance program. A defendant sought to move to dismiss based upon a Bermuda forum selection clause contained in a shareholder agreement it had entered into with an affiliate of the controlling shareholder of the insurance companies. The shareholder agreement was part of the overall rent-a-captive insurance program, and the insurance policies at issue were also part of that program. The district court held that the forum selection provision did not apply to the dispute over policy premiums for two reasons: (1) the forum provision was not part of the insurance policies, and hence the insurance companies were not bound by it; and (2) the forum clause, by its terms, applied only to disputes concerning the shareholder agreement, and hence did not cover disputes concerning the insurance policies. Rohrbaugh v. U.S. Management, Inc., Case No. 05-3486 (USDC E.D.N.Y. July 2, 2007).
Court Rejects Argument That Custom Implies “Follow The Fortunes” Clause Into Reinsurance Contract
This controversy involved a reinsurance dispute between ERC, a reinsurer, and Laurier, an insurer incorporated in Bermuda. ERC declined to indemnify Laurier for the settlement costs of a wrongful death suit. The present matter came before the court on the parties’ motions for reconsideration of a magistrate’s rulings on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment.
ERC moved for summary judgment based on Laurier’s failure to provide prompt notice of the claim, and contended that the delay was unreasonable as a matter of law and that it suffered prejudice as a result. ERC also claimed entitlement to partial summary judgment because “follow the fortunes” clauses are not implied in reinsurance contracts.
The reinsurance contracts at issue did not contain a “follow-the fortunes” clause. Laurier argued that the absence of the clause constituted an ambiguity in the contract and that the Court should allow custom to imply the clause into the reinsurance contract. The court disagreed, concluding that it could not “go outside the laws of contract construction and outside the four corners of an unambiguous contract to add a clause that was not bargained for.” As such, the court granted partial summary judgment for ERC on the issue of the “follow the fortunes” clause.
The court denied summary judgment on the remaining issues, including allocation of loss, waiver of the late notice defense, and the timeliness of the notice, finding that genuine issues of material fact existed as to those issues. ERC v. Laurier Indemnity Co., Case No. 8:03-cv-1650 (M.D. Fla. June 25, 2007). [The choice of law dispute in this case was addressed in an earlier posting on this blog on June 16, 2006.]
UK COURT DECLINES TO FIND REINSURANCE COVERAGE DESPITE FOLLOW THE FORTUNES PROVISION SINCE DAMAGES OUTSIDE POLICY PERIOD
This case involves a situation in which a U.S. court found that an insurance policy covered a portion of damages incurred prior to and after a policy period based upon a manifestation coverage trigger. The insured then entered into a settlement agreement, and sought coverage from its reinsurers for the amount of the settlement. The resulting reinsurance dispute was litigated in a UK court. The UK court found that even though it was apparent that the insured had acted in good faith and prudently in negotiating the settlement to minimize its loss, the reinsurance did not cover damage that occurred outside the time period of the coverage of the reinsurance agreement. This decision illustrates an important area of risk for companies which may have their insurance and reinsurance governed by different applicable law, whether the laws of different U.S. states, which may have different coverage trigger or damage allocation theories, or the laws of a U.S. state and the UK. Care should be taken in establishing reinsurance programs to attempt to avoid such a scenario. Wasa International Ins. Co. v. Lexington Ins. Co., [2007] EWHC 896 (Queen’s Bench Commercial Court April 25, 2007).
Court refuses to find fiduciary duty in reinsurance relationship
Employers Reinsurance Corporation (“ERC”) filed suit in Missouri federal court against its reinsured, Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company (“MassMutual”) alleging that MassMutual breached the parties’ reinsurance agreement. MassMutual filed various counterclaims alleging that ERC breached the contract by failing to reimburse it for covered claims under the contract. ERC sought dismissal of MassMutual’s counterclaims for vexatious refusal under Missouri and Kansas law and breach of fiduciary duty.
In dismissing both vexatious refusal claims, the court did not reach the substantive issue of whether the Missouri and Kansas statutes apply to a reinsurance contract, but rather dismissed on the ground that Connecticut law, and not Missouri or Kansas law, applied to the parties’ reinsurance contract. Applying Connecticut law, the court also dismissed MassMutual’s claim for breach of fiduciary duty, concluding that the “defendant has failed to plead sufficient facts in its counterclaim supporting a fiduciary relationship between plaintiff and defendant.” Specifically, the defendants failed “to allege facts that there was a unique degree of trust and confidence between the parties or that plaintiff had superior knowledge, skill, or expertise.” The court added that “[c]considering that Connecticut courts have deemed that there is no fiduciary relationship between an individual policy holder and a sophisticated insurance company, they are not likely to imply one in a reinsurance relationship between two sophisticated insurance companies.” Employers Reinsurance Corp. v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Ins. Co., Case No. 06-0188-CV-W-FJG (W.D.Mo. April 10, 2007).