Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

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

Arbitration / Court Decisions

ENGLISH COURT DENIES AGGREGATION OF CLAIMS; PERMITS INSURER TO SEEK RECOVERY FROM BROKER

by

The English Commercial Court has ruled that Standard Life Assurance Ltd can not recover damages from its underwriters arising out of the improper sales of mortgage endowment policies, but could claim against its insurance broker, Aon. Standard Life subscribed to a policy with a liability cover of £75 million in excess of £25 million. The policy contained a provision permitting the aggregation of claims arising from an originating cause or source. The insured aggregated 97,000 small claims and sought to recover the full £75 million excess of £25 million. The underwriters claimed that even if the claims did arise from a single originating cause, the claims could not be aggregated because the policy schedule and slip contained the wording “excess: £25million each and every claim and/or claimant.”

The court agreed with the underwriters, finding that the policy did not allow for the claims to be aggregated together, meaning the excess limit could not be reached. Specifically, the court found no “plausible purpose for the inclusion of the words ‘and/or claimant’ in the excess provision in the slip other than the attempted achievement of a per claimant excess.”

Prior to the court’s ruling, Aon brought its own negligence claim against Reynolds Porter Chamberlain (“RPC”) as a third party to the proceedings. Aon’s claim against RPC argues that the firm did not recognize that the wording of the policy meant the claims could not be grouped together. Standard Life Assurance Ltd. – and – Oak Dedicated Ltd. – and – Aon Ltd., Reynolds Porter Chamberlain, [2008] EWHC 222 (Comm. Feb. 13, 2008).

This post written by Lynn Hawkins.

AIG SETTLES FINITE REINSURANCE DISPUTE WITH PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE

by

AIG has settled issues with the Pennsylvania Department of Insurance arising out of finite reinsurance and bid-rigging allegations, agreeing to pay over $9 million in penalties and costs. This is the largest penalty ever levied upon an insurer by the department. The finite reinsurance issues arose out of one of the transactions included in the recent criminal conviction in Connecticut. New compliance measures are included to ensure accurate financial reporting and increased transparency of commission payments to agents and brokers. Details of the settlement are generally set out in a press release issued by the Department, and in a detailed settlement agreement.

This post written by Rollie Goss.

REINSURER’S AGENT IMPROPERLY JOINED IN INSURED’S ACTION AGAINST REINSURER

by

Plaintiff, First Automotive Service Corporation (“FASC”), insures extended vehicle service contracts sold to automobile dealers and vehicle owners. Defendant, Northbrook Indemnity Company, is the reinsurer for a portion of that risk, and defendant, First Colonial Insurance Company (“First Colonial”), acts as “agent” and “manager” for Northbrook. FASC filed this lawsuit in state court in mid-2007 alleging that Northbrook owed FASC in excess of $10 million for claims arising under the four placement slips. Northbrook removed the case to federal court based upon diversity jurisdiction, contending that First Colonial corporation (a Florida corporation), had been fraudulently joined to defeat diversity. In their motion to remand, plaintiffs asserted that the parties were properly named.

The Court denied plaintiffs’ motion to remand, finding that “plaintiffs provide no basis for the Court to find that First Colonial acted as other than agent for Northbrook as it pertains to the placement slips,” and that “[t]here was no express agreement alleged or established by evidence that First Colonial would be personally liable to . . . FASC as reinsurer.” As such, the court concluded that “First Colonial, as agent to insurer Northbrook, is not a proper party in plaintiffs’ declaratory judgment action because as agent it is not a party to the contract between the insured and the insurer.” First Automotive Services Corp. v. First Colonial Ins. Co., Case No. 07-682 (USDC M.D. Fla. March 25, 2008).

This post written by Lynn Hawkins.

CASE UPDATE: ENGLISH COURT OF APPEAL REVERSES DECISION DENYING REINSURANCE COVERAGE, MARKING DEPARTURE FROM TRADITIONAL FOLLOW THE SETTLEMENTS RULINGS

by

In a May 23, 2007 post, we reported on a UK decision denying reinsurance coverage despite a follow the fortunes provision based on a finding that the damages occurred outside the coverage period of the reinsurance, despite the conclusion of a US court on the underlying claim finding liability for damage occurring outside the coverage period of the underlying policy. The UK Court of Appeals has allowed an appeal, finding that the coverage provision of the reinsurance should be interpreted in the same manner as the coverage provision in the underlying insurance.

The English appellate court agreed that the insurance and reinsurance contracts were not entirely “back to back” in terms of the coverage periods, but concluded that although there were some differences in the contracts, the parties intended that they should have the same effect and therefore, the reinsured’s settlement of the insurance claim did fall within the terms of the reinsurance contract. Despite the fact that the reinsurance appeared only to cover damage that occurred during the period of the reinsurance, and the trigger of coverage used by the US court permitted a broader recovery from the insurer, the Court of Appeals accepted the proposition that “the same or equivalent [coverage] wordings should be given the same meaning in the reinsurance contract as in the insurance contract.”

Explaining that the UK reinsurer had taken certain known risks in reinsuring a US insurer, the Court concluded that although the judgment against the insured was not one which the reinsurers expected, nevertheless it was one which was a possibility that they agreed to cover. This decision marks a departure from previous ‘follow the settlement’ cases involving differences in the insurance and reinsurance contracts, which have typically been resolved in favor of the reinsurers. Wasa International Ins. Co. v. Lexington Ins. Co., [2008] EWCA Civ 150 (Feb. 29, 2008).

This post written by Lynn Hawkins.

COURT INTERPRETS REINSURANCE AGREEMENT LIABILITY LIMIT IN SUMMARY JUDGMENT SETTING

by

A district court has interpreted the liability limit of a reinsurance agreement in a summary judgment setting, finding the language to be unambiguous, and finding in favor of the position advanced by the reinsured. The opinion contains a good discussion of the rules for interpreting reinsurance agreements. Princeton Ins. Co. v. Converium Reinsurance (North America) Inc., Case No. 06-599 (USDC D. N.J. Mar. 27, 2008).

This post written by Rollie Goss.