Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

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

Arbitration / Court Decisions

SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF BROKER IN MALPRACTICE CASE REVERSED, WHERE SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH INSURED MAY HAVE EXISTED

by

In a case involving alleged broker malpractice with respect to certain underinsured business interruption losses under a commercial property insurance policy, the New York high court reversed a lower appellate court’s affirmance of summary judgment in favor of the insurance broker. The court found that the evidence suggested that “there was some interaction regarding a question of business interruption coverage, with the insured relying on the expertise of the agent,” where the insured testified that (1) she and the broker discussed the coverage, (2) the broker requested sales figures and other data, (3) the broker assured the insured that the coverage was adequate, and (4) the broker repeatedly pledged to review coverage annually and recommend adjustments as the insured’s businesses grew. The court also reversed the intermediate court’s majority view that the insured’s knowledge of the coverage limits warranted dismissal. The court explained that, where a special relationship existed, “it is wholly irrelevant whether [the insured was] aware of the limits that were actually procured.” Voss v. Netherlands Insurance Co., Case No. 11 (N.Y. Ct. App. Feb. 25, 2014).

This post written by Michael Wolgin.

See our disclaimer.

COURT DISMISSES CLAIM AGAINST AIG FOR BREACH OF REINSURNACE CONTRACTS

by

Reinsurer Transatlantic Reinsurance Company sued AIG and certain of its subsidiaries for a declaration that they breached various provisions of reinsurance certificates by transferring their risk under asbestos liability policies to another insurer. The court dismissed the claim against AIG, holding that it was undisputed that AIG itself was not a signatory to the reinsurance certificates at issue, and that the complaint failed to allege that AIG, as an “alter ego,” dominated and controlled the actions of the signatory AIG subsidiaries. The court was not persuaded into finding AIG liable by the contention that AIG was the party responsible for making the decision to transfer the insurance risk. The court explained that “TransRe’s allegations that AIG’s ‘de-risking’ strategy interfered with the Insureds’ abilities to meet their obligations under their contracts with TransRe do not permit this court to find that AIG has made a sham of the corporate formalities of the Insurers, as required to establish alter-ego liability.” Transatlantic Reinsurance Co. v. American International Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 152812/2013 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 7, 2014).

This post written by Michael Wolgin.

See our disclaimer.

COURT REFUSES DISCOVERY OF COMMUNICATIONS WITH REINSURERS BECAUSE POLICY TERM WAS NOT AMBIGUOUS

by

Reinsurance communications were held not discoverable in a commercial coverage dispute. By way of background, PBM Products, LLC sued its competitors, Mead Johnson Nutrition Company and Mead Johnson & Company, for allegedly engaging in a false advertising campaign against formulas manufactured by PBM. On November 10, 2009, PBM won a $13.5 million judgment. Mead Johnson had a commercial general liability policy issued by National Union Fire Insurance Company and a commercial umbrella liability policy issued by Lexington Insurance Company. After the verdict, National Union filed a declaratory judgment action based on untimely notice and because the damages imposed by the jury were not covered under the policy. Mead Johnson counterclaimed against National Union and Lexington for breach of contract and seeking a declaration that Mead Johnson was entitled to coverage. The Court entered summary judgment on the issue of late notice in favor of the Insurers. Mead Johnson appealed and the Seventh Circuit reversed summary judgment because there had been no factual development concerning the issue of harm.

On remand, the district court revisited a pending discovery dispute. The magistrate judge had earlier granted Mead Johnson’s request with respect to: (1) the underwriting files; (2) communications between the insurers’ reinsurers; (3) the number of times Paul Hastings was retained by the insurers to defend “personal and advertising injury” claims during the relevant time period; and (4) the insurers’ manuals or marketing materials. Specifically with regard to the reinsurance communications, the court found that because the term “personal and advertising injury” was not ambiguous, communications with reinsurers regarding the meaning of claim terms were irrelevant. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, PA. v. Mead Johnson & Co., Case No. 3:11-CV-00015-RLY-WGH (USDC S.D. Ind. Mar. 10, 2014).

AMBIGUITIES IN REINSURANCE BROKER AGREEMENT PRECLUDE SUMMARY JUDGMENT

by

A federal district court in Arkansas recently examined provisions of a Broker Authorization Agreement between a reinsurance broker (Global Risk) and a ceding insurer (Aetna). In denying cross-motions for summary judgment on the broker’s breach of contract claim, the court concluded that the agreement contained arguably contradictory provisions regarding who was responsible for paying the broker. One provision expressly placed the responsibility for payment of the broker’s services with the reinsurer (not a party to the Broker Authorization Agreement), while a separate provision addressed Global Risk’s entitlement to be compensated in the event that the agreement was terminated or the reinsurance portfolio was transferred. The court concluded that the agreement was ambiguous because “[i]f [the ceding insurer] had no responsibility to compensate [the reinsurance broker], then these latter provisions would be meaningless. That they are included in the contract between [the reinsurance broker] and [the ceding insurer] suggests that [the ceding insurer] has an obligation to compensate [the reinsurance broker].” Global Risk Intermediary, LLC v. Aetna Global Benefits Ltd., Case No. 4:13-CV-0133 (USDC W.D. Ark. Mar. 12, 2014).

This post written by Catherine Acree.

See our disclaimer.