Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

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

Arbitration / Court Decisions

UK HIGH COURT ORDERS “FURTHER REASONS” IN EXPERT DETERMINATION

by

In March, the United Kingdom’s High Court ruled that courts have the authority to order further explanations from the umpire in an expert determination. The parties in this case entered into an agreement whereby the claimant, Halifax Life Limited (“Halifax”) agreed to reinsure the defendant’s business. A dispute arouse as to the precise balance of premium payable for the reinsurance. Pursuant to the agreement, an umpire was appointed, who would act as an expert, not an arbitrator, whose decision would be binding on the parties. In September, 2006, the umpire issued a ruling. The claimants, unsatisfied with the ruling, challenged the umpire’s determination on several grounds.

Mr. Justice Cresswell found that the reasons given by the umpire for arriving at his decision were inadequate under the circumstances. Although Justice Cresswell declined to make a declaration that the expert determination was not binding, he referred to section 70(4) of the Arbitration Act of 1996, which allows a court to order the tribunal to state the reasons in detail where it appears that the award does not contain sufficient detail to enable the matter to be properly considered. Justice Cresswell stated that “[i]t would be highly anomalous if an expert’s failure to give reasons caused the determination not to be binding, when this is not the position in the case of arbitration awards.” Instead, he adjourned the hearing and directed the umpire to state further reasons for his ruling. Halifax v. Equitable Life Assurance Society, [2007] EWHC 503 (Mar. 13, 2007).

Court dismisses RICO and antitrust claims (again) in insurance brokerage litigation

by

The District Court Judge in the Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation MDL action has again dismissed the RICO and Sherman Act claims asserted by the Plaintiffs. Separate opinions were issued with respect to the antitrust claims and the RICO claims. Both types of claims have been dismissed, before, and in both of the recent opinions, the Court stated that it would give the Plaintiffs “one final opportunity” to amend their claims. In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1663 (USDC D.N.J. April 5, 2007). There are prior posts to this blog with respect to this action, dated September 14, 2006 and October 16, 2006.

PRIVILEGE DISPUTES CONTINUE IN “RENT-A-CAPTIVE” CASE

by

Diane Koken, the Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner, is the Statutory Liquidator for Legion Insurance Company and Villanova Insurance Company. In this case, Koken, as Liquidator, sought to recover more than $4 million in premiums and commissions allegedly due to the insurance companies pursuant to a Limited Agency Agreement between Legion and American Patriot Insurance Agency (“Patriot”). Patriot denied liability, alleging Legion perpetrated a fraud upon Patriot in relation to a “Rent-a-Captive” workers’ compensation program. During depositions of two of Legion’s former executives, Defendants’ counsel attempted to inquire into this fraud issue, but counsel for the Liquidator objected on the basis of attorney-client privilege. Defendants filed a motion to overrule the Liquidator’s claim of privilege pursuant to the crime/fraud exception, which the court denied in May 2006. That decision was affirmed in December 2006.

The defendants recently asked the court to overrule the Liquidator’s claim of privilege as to conversations between Legion’s Executive Vice President, Glenn Partridge, and Legion’s General Counsel, Andrew Walsh. While the court agreed that conversations with Mr. Walsh were not per se privileged, the court stated it was not in a position to determine whether the privilege applied because Mr. Partridge has not been deposed. The court agreed to postpone Mr. Partridge’s deposition pending a ruling on the Liquidator’s motion for summary judgment. Koken v. American Patriot Ins. Agency, Inc., Case No. 05-C-1049 (N.D.Ill. March 23, 2007).

SOCIETY OF LLOYDS’ ACTION FOR RECOGNITION OF FOREIGN COUNTRY JUDGMENT SURVIVES MOTION TO DISMISS

by

In September 2006, the Society of Lloyds filed an Amended Complaint in a Florida District Court seeking recognition and enforcement of a foreign country judgment under Florida Statutes. The Defendant, Robert Sumerel, moved to dismiss the case as barred by the statute of limitations, asserting that the Amended Complaint is a common law civil action, not a statutory cause of action. The court disagreed, finding that the Amended Complaint did plead a statutory cause of action, and therefore the statute of limitations argument failed. Society of Lloyds v. Robert Sumerel, Case No. 2:06-cv-329-FtM-29DNF (USDC M.D. Fla. April 10, 2007).

Court refuses to find fiduciary duty in reinsurance relationship

by

Employers Reinsurance Corporation (“ERC”) filed suit in Missouri federal court against its reinsured, Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company (“MassMutual”) alleging that MassMutual breached the parties’ reinsurance agreement. MassMutual filed various counterclaims alleging that ERC breached the contract by failing to reimburse it for covered claims under the contract. ERC sought dismissal of MassMutual’s counterclaims for vexatious refusal under Missouri and Kansas law and breach of fiduciary duty.

In dismissing both vexatious refusal claims, the court did not reach the substantive issue of whether the Missouri and Kansas statutes apply to a reinsurance contract, but rather dismissed on the ground that Connecticut law, and not Missouri or Kansas law, applied to the parties’ reinsurance contract. Applying Connecticut law, the court also dismissed MassMutual’s claim for breach of fiduciary duty, concluding that the “defendant has failed to plead sufficient facts in its counterclaim supporting a fiduciary relationship between plaintiff and defendant.” Specifically, the defendants failed “to allege facts that there was a unique degree of trust and confidence between the parties or that plaintiff had superior knowledge, skill, or expertise.” The court added that “[c]considering that Connecticut courts have deemed that there is no fiduciary relationship between an individual policy holder and a sophisticated insurance company, they are not likely to imply one in a reinsurance relationship between two sophisticated insurance companies.” Employers Reinsurance Corp. v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Ins. Co., Case No. 06-0188-CV-W-FJG (W.D.Mo. April 10, 2007).