Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

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

Arbitration / Court Decisions

DISTRICT COURT DENIES LLOYDS’ RULE 59 MOTION IN DISPUTE WITH EMPLOYERS INSURANCE; SECOND APPEAL FOLLOWS

by

In our 11/9/09 post, we reported on the dispute between Employers Ins. and Lloyds of London. In the most recent development, the Lloyds-parties filed a Rule 59 Motion for Reconsideration and Clarification of the District Court’s September 28th opinion and order requesting that the court declare that Wisconsin law applies to the parties’ contracts or in the alternative that irrespective of which law is applied the arbitrators are required to be impartial and disinterested. The District Court denied Lloyds’ Motion for Reconsideration finding that Lloyds had failed to demonstrate that the order and opinion was in error and that the motion at hand failed to specify relief contemplated by Rules 59 or 60. The Lloyds-parties subsequently filed a revised notice of appeal to the Seventh Circuit to include this Order, as well as ones covered by a prior Notice of Appeal. Employers Ins. Co. of Wausau v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds of London, Case No. 09-210 (W.D. Wisc. Oct. 23; Oct. 29, 2009).

This post written by John Black.

CAPTIVE REINSURANCE ARRANGEMENT LAWSUIT REINSTATED BY THIRD CIRCUIT

by

In a putative class action by homebuyers seeking to recover treble damages under section 8(d)(2) of the Federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, the Third Circuit held that the statute’s plain language permits private litigants to sue if their real estate settlement transaction involve unlawful settlement service referrals or fee splitting. Plaintiffs alleged that their private mortgage insurance premiums were channeled into an unlawful captive reinsurance arrangement operated by their mortgage lender and its affiliated reinsurer. Plaintiffs further alleged they had a statutory right to a real estate settlement free from unlawful kickbacks and unearned fees, and the lender’s invasion of that right gave them standing to sue. The district court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (see our December 27, 2008 post), but the Third Circuit reversed, and also rejected the lender’s argument that the lawsuit was barred by the filed rate doctrine. Alston v. Countrywide Financial Corp., No. 08-4334 (3d Cir. Oct. 28, 2009).

This post written by Brian Perryman.

ENGLISH HIGH COURT RULES THAT EQUITAS MAY USE ACTUARIAL MODELING TO RECOVER LONDON MARKET EXCESS OF LOSS SPIRAL LOSSES

by

This dispute concerns indemnity for losses stemming from the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989 and the loss of aircraft at the Kuwait International Airport when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990. Equitas Ltd. (“Equitas”), as the assignee of the rights of Lloyd’s syndicates, brought claims against R&Q Reinsurance Company Ltd. (“R&Q”) under reinsurance contracts written by R&Q within the London Market Excess of Loss spiral. Equitas argued that recoverable losses were capable of being proved, Equitas had succeeded in proving these losses to a standard of the balance of probabilities through the use of actuarial modeling, and, therefore, Equitas was entitled to recovery. R&Q argued against any recovery unless Equitas could prove contract by contract, at each level of the spiral, that the sums claimed were properly due. The High Court sided with Equitas, ruling that how Equitas proved losses was one of fact or evidence. Equitas was not required to prove losses contract by contract at each level of the spiral. The High Court next ruled that actuarial modeling, although imperfect, was an acceptable solution to prove properly recoverable losses incurred by the syndicates. Equitas Ltd. v. R&Q Reins. Co. Ltd., [2009] EWHC 2787 (Comm. Ct. Nov. 11, 2009).

This post written by Dan Crisp.

NINTH CIRCUIT FINDS REVISED CLASS ACTION BAN IN ARBITRATION AGREEMENT UNCONSCIONABLE

by

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a “new twist” on the previously addressed issue of when an arbitration provision barring aggregation of individual claims is unconscionable did not command a new result. Plaintiffs brought a class action suit in California federal court against AT&T Mobility, LLC, alleging that they were unfairly charged sales tax on the retail price of a new phone that had been offered as “free” with the sign-up of new service. AT&T demanded that the claims be submitted to individual arbitration, as per the arbitration provision of the provider agreement. The plaintiffs pointed to a previous Ninth Circuit decision, Shoyer v. Cingular Wireless Services, Inc., (9th Cir. 2007), which held that a similar arbitration provision was unconscionable in part because it tended to prevent plaintiffs from suing on individual claims due to the disproportionate legal expense of doing so vis-à-vis the small amount of damages at issue. The class action procedure, the Court held in Shoyer, is designed to avoid this problem. However, AT&T’s arbitration clause contained a provision requiring the company to pay $7,500 to any claimant who won an arbitration award in excess of AT&T’s last offer, in order to provide financial incentive for claimants to bring individual claims and to address the inequity identified by the Court in Shoyer. Nevertheless, the Ninth Circuit was not convinced that this new language cured the defect of tending to prevent individual claims from being vindicated, due to the small amount of damages. The Court additionally held that the FAA does not trump California contract law on unconscionability. Laster v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, No. 08-56394 (9th Cir. Oct. 27, 2009).

This post written by John Pitblado.

DISTRICT COURT DENIES SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN OLSON, FINDS REINSURER HAD RIGHT TO SEEK REVIEW

by

In the latest development in the Olsen v. United States case, the US District Court for the Eastern District of Washington issued an Order denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Following a complicated procedural history involving a number of arbitration decisions which were ultimately vacated, Plaintiffs initiated the instant action challenging under the APA the National Appeals Division’s resolution of Plaintiffs’ claims for payment of their crop insurance. Plaintiffs asserted two primary arguments: (1) Reinsurer FCIC had no legal right to revise claim determinations made under a private contract of insurance that FCIC was not a party to; and (2) NAD lacked jurisdiction over the issue of whether Plaintiffs had been overpaid by AGIC. The District Court denied Plaintiffs’ Motion, finding that the insurance contract granted FCIC authority to revise the claim and that administrative review of Plaintiffs’ claims by the NAD was appropriate. Olson v. United States, Case No. 08-5012 (USDC E.D. Wash. Sept. 30, 2009).

This post written by John Black.