Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

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

Arbitration / Court Decisions

NEW YORK COURTS ADDRESS DISCOVERY AND VENUE DISPUTES IN CONTRACT RESCISSION CASE INVOLVING ALLEGED FINITE REINSURANCE TRANSACTION

by

In a recent discovery dispute between Udayan Ghose (the former Chairman of the Board of Directors of New Cap Reinsurance Corporation ) and CNA Reinsurance, a New York trial court compelled CNA to produce underwriting manuals and guidelines, claims handling manuals, and documents concerning whether it sold finite reinsurance. Plaintiffs argued that the underwriting manuals and other such documents were necessary to disprove defendants’ defense of rescission of the D&O liability policy at issue in the litigation. CNA argued that its underwriting materials were irrelevant since a third party (Encon Underwriting) was responsible for underwriting the policy. Because the defendants were arguing that they would not have issued the policy if they had known of certain misrepresentations made by New Cap, the court concluded that the requested documents were discoverable as being relevant to the issue of materiality. Ghose v. CNA Reinsurance Co. Ltd, No. 108121/04 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Aug. 20, 2007).

Just a few weeks later, the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division issued an opinion on defendants’ appeal of an order denying a motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds. In a unanimous decision, the Appellate court reversed and granted the motion to dismiss on the condition that the defendants consent to jurisdiction in either Australia, England, or Bermuda, and to waive any statute of limitations defense. The court noted in dicta that if the case had remained in New York state court, it would have sustained an interim award of defense costs, pending resolution of the insurers’ attempt unilaterally to rescind the underlying policy. Ghose v. CNA Reinsurance Co. Ltd, 2007 NY Slip Op 06572 (NY App. Div. Sept. 6, 2007).

This post written by Lynn Hawkins.

NURSING HOME ARBITRATION AGREEMENT UPHELD

by

A former Air Force intelligence officer with a bachelor’s degree in English and 27 years of experience as a claims examiner and manager for an insurance company, pursuant to a power of attorney and health care directive, signed papers admitting his 91-year old father to a nursing home. The arbitration provision was presented as a separate document, was not a requirement for admission and was discussed prior to its execution. After the father passed away and negligence claims were filed, a motion to compel arbitration was filed, and the validity of the arbitration provision was contested. The Massachusetts Supreme Court, applying both Massachusetts law and the Federal Arbitration Act, found that the arbitration agreement was enforceable, and not unconscionable. Some of the defendants were parties to the arbitration agreement, while others were not. The lower courts had held that it was inequitable and inefficient to force the plaintiff to litigate against some defendants in court and others in arbitration, but the Supreme Court disagreed, holding that this was “the necessary result of the choice that Miller made when he signed the arbitration agreement.” Miller v. Cotter, 448 Mass. 671 (Mass. 2007).

This post written by Rollie Goss.

INSURANCE COMPANY SANCTIONED FOR FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE

by

A New York district court sanctioned Excess Insurance Company in the amount of $4,500 for its failure to communicate with the defendants and with the court. The plaintiff initially filed this action in December 2005, seeking reimbursement under reinsurance agreements executed in 1979 and 1980 with Metropolitan Reinsurance Company. At the initial pre-trial conference, Defendant Odyssey America maintained that it was not the proper party because it was not the successor-in-interest to Met Re. Shortly thereafter, plaintiffs commenced arbitration proceedings against the proper party. For the following six months, the defendant and the court were unable to contact the plaintiff regarding voluntary dismissal of the action. The court, recognizing plaintiff’s “grossly negligent” conduct, sanctioned plaintiff’s in the amount of $4,500 and dismissed the case with prejudice. Excess Ins. Co. v. Odyssey Am. Reinsurance Co., No. 05 Civ. 10884 (NRB), (USDC S.D.N.Y. Nov. 28, 2007).

This post written by Lynn Hawkins.

COURT DENIES MOTION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD

by

Commercial Risk Reinsurance Company Limited (“Commercial Risk”) brought this action to vacate an arbitration award against it and in favor of Security Insurance Company of Hartford (“Security”). In the underlying arbitration, Security sought to recover losses arising from workers compensation programs covered by two reinsurance agreements entered into by the parties in 1999 and 2000. In those contracts, Commercial Risk agreed to accept a certain share of Security’s interests and liabilities associated with the covered workers compensation programs insured by Security. Commercial Risk denied payments of amounts billed by Security under the treaties contending that a portion of the losses were not covered. The arbitration panel found in favor of Security.

Commercial Risk argued that the award should be overturned because: (1) the panel issued the Award jointly rather than severally against the two separate Commercial Risk entities; (2) the arbitration proceeding was fundamentally unfair because the panel excluded testimony of Commercial Risk’s witnesses and exhibits pertaining to damages; and (3) the panel exceeded its authority in a variety of ways. The Court rejected all of Commercial Risk’s arguments finding “no evidence that the arbitrators engaged in misconduct, or exceeded their authority, or that Security committed any fraud sufficient to vacate the Award.” Commercial Risk Reinsurance Co. Ltd. v. Security Insurance Co. of Hartford, Case No. 07 Civ 2772 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 30, 2007). Commercial Risk’s motion for reconsideration also was denied. Commercial Risk Reinsurance Co. Ltd. v. Security Insurance Co. of Hartford, Case No. 07 Civ 2772 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 12, 2007).

This post written by Lynn Hawkins.

ENGLISH REINSURANCE ASSETS TO BE REMITTED TO AUSTRALIAN LIQUIDATORS, BUT FOR WHAT REASON?

by

In a July 12, 2007 post, we reported on issues relating to HIH Casualty and General Insurance Limited (“HIH”). The question before the court was whether it had jurisdiction to entertain a request under the Insolvency Act for directions to the liquidators in England to transfer assets collected by them to the liquidators in an Australian liquidation. The Court of Appeal held that it would not direct a transfer of the English assets by the English provisional liquidators to the Australian liquidators because to do so would prejudice the interests of many of the creditors. The House of Lords disagreed, allowing an appeal and ruling that the English assets of the insolvent insurer should be remitted to the Australian liquidator. There were sharp differences of opinion as to why exactly that should be the case.

The HIH group presented winding up petitions to the Supreme Court of New South Wales in 2001. Some of the assets, which consisted mostly of reinsurance claims on London policies, were situated in England, so English provisional liquidators were appointed. The Australian judge subsequently issued winding up orders and sent a letter to the High Court in London asking that the provisional liquidators remit the assets to the Australian liquidators for distribution in accordance with Australian law. The question on appeal was whether the English court could and should accede to the request. The alternative was a separate liquidation and distribution of the English assets under the English Insolvency Act of 1986. The manner of distribution mattered because Australian law generally gave priority to insurance creditors at the expense of other creditors, while the same result would not obtain under English law.

The decision was resolved primarily by analyzing the tension between section 426(4) of the Insolvency Act, which allows an English court with insolvency jurisdiction to assist designated foreign courts (including Australian courts), and section 426(5) of the same Act, which allows a court discretion to provide assistance in accordance with the rules of private international law, including the common law principle of “modified universalism.” That principle requires United Kingdom courts to cooperate with Australian courts to ensure that all the assets are distributed under a single system of distribution. While the court stated that a refusal to remit the assets might be appropriate if it causes a manifest injustice to a creditor, it ultimately found that the Australian distribution was not unacceptably discriminatory or contrary to public policy.

The dispute was focused on whether the basis of jurisdiction ought to be grounded in the common law considerations allowed by section 426(5) or the discrete statutory authority of section 426(4). Lord Hoffmann would have allowed the remission solely through the exercise of common law principles. He argued that under the common law doctrine of ancillary winding up, English courts may “disapply” parts of the statutory scheme by authorizing the English liquidator to allow actions he is obliged by statute to perform in accordance with English law to be performed by the foreign liquidator in accordance with foreign law. Others, including Lord Phillips, rejected this view: “I do not propose to stray from the firm area of common ground [of allowing the appeal under section 426] onto the controversial area of whether, in the absence of statutory jurisdiction, the same result could have been reached under a discretion available under the common law.” Lord Neuberger, too, opposed Lord Hoffman’s view, stating that he took “the view that it would not have been open to an English court to make the order sought by the Australian liquidators in the absence of section 426(4) and (5) of the 1986 Act.” McGrath v. Riddell [2008] UKHL 21 (Apr. 9, 2008).

This post written by Brian Perryman.