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 ALLOWS UNDERWRITER TO CONTINUE RUN-OFF BUSINESS

by

In 2003, insurer Europ Assistance, and underwriter, Temple Legal Protection, entered into a binding authority agreement that authorized Temple to write ‘after the expenses’ coverage and handle claims on behalf of Europ. In exchange, Temple received 35% commission on the net premium. In 2005, Europ terminated the business with respect to new business, and in April 2007, Europ informed Temple that it planned to revoke all of Temple’s authority. Temple asserted that Europ repudiated the binding authority agreement.

While waiting for resolution of the underlying dispute, Europ sought an injunction barring Temple from continuing to carry on the run-off business, alleging that Temple was causing loss by unlawful means and was guilty of unlawful interference and breach of trust in failing to hand over premiums.

Balancing the interest of both parties, the English court refused to enjoin Temple from continuing with the run-off business. The court seemed influenced by the fact that Europ, a subsidiary of the well known and substantial Italian insurance company Assurazioni Generali SpA, had no continuing interest in the expenses business. In contrast, Temple, a small company, would be adversely affected if it were barred from running off the business. Europ Assistance Ins. Ltd. v. Temple Legal Protection Ltd., [2007] EWHC 1785 (Queen’s Bench July 25, 2007).

DISTRICT COURT QUASHES CRIMINAL SUBPOENAS ISSUED TO INSURANCE COMPANIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS

by

Last year, a federal grand jury in New Haven indicted four former senior executives of General Re Corporation and one former senior executive of AIG for their participation in a fraudulent scheme to manipulate AIG’s financial statements. Recently, three of the defendants issued multiple subpoenas to several insurance companies and their attorneys pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(c). The subpoenas were contested by both the government and the third party subpoena recipients.

Applying the legal standard set forth by the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Nixon, the district court concluded that the subpoenas were unenforceable because they sought materials outside the proper scope of Rule 17(c). Specifically, the materials sought by several of the subpoenas would only be useful as impeachment materials, and therefore failed Nixon’s admissibility requirement. Other subpoenas were to be found unenforceable because they failed Nixon’s relevancy requirement. United States of America v. Ferguson, Case No. 3:06cr137, (USDC D. Ct. Sept. 26, 2007).

ILLINOIS COURT GRANTS SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO INSURANCE COMMISSIONER, AS STATUTORY LIQUIDATOR, ON RESCISSION AND SETOFF AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

by

We have reported previously on developments in Legion Insurance’s liquidation proceeding (see January 16, 2007 and April 26, 2007 posts), including an attempt to recover premiums allegedly owed by American Patriot Insurance Agency, Inc. (“American Patriot”) relating to a workers’ compensation program under a limited agency agreement.

On September 7, an Illinois federal court granted the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment on American Patriot’s affirmative defenses for setoff and rescission. The court concluded that American Patriot had waived their right to rescind the limited agency agreement where they failed to take any steps towards rescinding the agreement until three years after they acquired knowledge of the fraud, coupled with Defendants’ continued retention of the benefits of the contract. With respect to American Patriot’s setoff defense, the liquidator contended that the alleged debts could not be mutual because they were not due and owing between the same parties or based upon the same contracts, and that mutuality of capacity was lacking because the premium owed by American Patriot were held in a fiduciary capacity. The judge agreed, stating that “the debts asserted by Defendants lack a mutuality of time with the debts asserted against them by the Liquidator, and Defendants’ claim for setoff must be dismissed on these grounds.”

The court denied summary judgment to the liquidator on American Patriot’s remaining affirmative defenses of unclean hands, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, estoppel of a 2000 program year and breach of contract. Ario v. American Patriot Ins. Agency, Case No. 05 C 1049 (N.D.Ill. September 7, 2007).

CONNECTICUT ATTORNEY GENERAL FILES ANTITRUST ACTION AGAINST GUY CARPENTER CHALLENGING THE USE OF REINSURANCE FACILITIES WITH LEAD REINSURERS

by

Opening a new front, Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal filed a 107 page Complaint in Connecticut state court against reinsurance broker Guy Carpenter & Company and Excess Reinsurance Company, alleging violations of the Connecticut antitrust and unfair trade practices statutes by fixing prices, creating closed reinsurance markets and allocating reinsurance markets. This action has potentially broad significance since one of the practices it challenges is the creation by reinsurance brokers of a reinsurance facility with a “lead” reinsurer, in which other reinsurers can participate only if the agree to the pricing and other terms set by the lead reinsurer. The Complaint alleges that such a facility is “totally insulated from competition or any competitive market forces.” The role of a “lead” reinsurer in setting market rates and terms is not an unusual concept in some lines of reinsurance and markets. State of Connecticut v. Guy Carpenter & Company and Excess Reinsurance Company, Superior Court, Judicial District of Hartford (October 4, 2007).

ARBITRATION AWARD CONFIRMATION DECISIONS

by

There are three recent decisions regarding arbitration awards, two of which have some unique interest:

  • In Comedy Club, Inc. v. Improv West Associates, No. 05-55739 (USCA 9th Cir. Sept. 7, 2007), the court partially confirmed and partially vacated an arbitration award, finding that the arbitrator properly arbitrated equitable claims, properly issued injunctions except to the extent that they sought to bind non-parties to the arbitration agreement who were not in privy with parties, did not act irrationally, but acted in manifest disregard of law in the imposition of an overbroad covenant not to compete.
  • In Ward v. Phantom Screens Manufacturing, Ltd., Case No. 04-3916 (USDC D. N.J. April 13, 2007), the court confirmed a Canadian arbitration award under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards with minimal analysis, noting that the Convention clearly stated the bases upon which an award could be vacated, and that none of those grounds were present. The bases for the Order are set out in a Memorandum.

  • In Louis J. Kennedy Trucking Co. v. Teamsters Local Union No. 701, Case No. 05-6005 (USDC D. N.J. Sept. 17, 2007), the court refused to vacate an arbitration award based upon claims that the arbitrator exceeded her authority, manifestly disregarded the law and acted in violation of public policy. The basis for the argument to vacate was basically that the arbitrator had erred, which is insufficient under the FAA.