In English and American Insurance Company Ltd. v. Axa Re SA, [2006] EWHC 3323 (Comm. Ct. Dec. 20, 2006), the UK Commercial Court of the Queen's Bench Division granted summary judgment to English and American Insurance Company (“EAIC”) on ten reinsurance contracts, pursuant to which a predecessor of Axa Re reinsured EAIC for its participation in insurance of Dow Chemical Company. The losses related to claims relating to Dow's manufacture and sale of breat implant devices and silicone materials. Provisional liquidators had been apponted for EAIC in 1993, and EAIC has been the subject of a scheme of arrangement since 1995. After pursuing its solvent insurers, Dow pursued EAIC, which in turn made claims on its reinsurance. EAIC entered into what the Court described as an interim settlement with Dow, in which in effect recognized that it had a liability to Dow of at least $3,772,760. The scheme of arrangement was paying EAIC's creidtors a dividend rate of 25%. The Court granted EAIC partial summary judgment against Axa Re in the amount of $673,808, an amount which the Court found Axa Re had “no realistic prospect of successfully defending.” Apparently, the litigation will continue with respect to other amounts claimed by EAIC.
Arbitration / Court Decisions
Court splits requested class arbitration into separate arbitrations
Cintas Corp. was sued by a group of its service sales representatives for back pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act, which provides for opt-in classes. The District Court entered an Order compelling 56 of the 65 named Plaintiffs to arbitrate, and a request for class-wide arbitration was filed with the American Arbitration Association. The Court held that the arbitrator should determine whether class-wide arbitration was appropriate. After approximately 2,400 Plaintiffs opted into the back pay lawsuit, Cintas filed 70 separate actions against such Plaintiffs, seeking to compel them to arbitrate the dispute in the Districts in which they were employed by Cintas. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation created an MDL proceeding, transferring the 70 separate actions to the original forum court, for a determination of: (1) whether the parties named in the 70 separate actions were refusing to arbitrate within the meaning of section 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act; and (2) whether the parties were complying with that obligation by seeking class-wide arbitration. The Court held that the parties were refusing to arbitrate within the meaning of section 4 of the FAA, found that all common proceedings had been completed, and suggested that the cases be remanded to the transferor courts for further, individual, proceedings. In re: Cintas Corp. Overtime Pay Arbitration Lit., Case No. 06-1781 (USDC N.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2007).
Connecticut statute requiring posting of collateral by unauthorized reinsurer enforced
A District Court has enforced a Connecticut statute requiring that prior to filing any pleading in any court action, non-admitted insurers post collateral in an amount “sufficient to secure the payment of any final judgment.” Conn. Gen. Stat. section 38a-27. The Court held that this statute applied to reinsurers, but instead of striking an answer that had been filed, gave the defendant 15 days to post the required security, failing which its Answer would be stricken. Security Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Universal Reinsurance Co., Case No. 06-158 (D. Ct. Jan. 25, 2007).
Fifth Circuit articulates evident partiality standard
In a software licensing dispute, a sole arbitrator entered an award, only to have the award vacated by a District Court on the basis that the arbitrator had failed to disclose an instance in which he had served as one of many co-counsel in a lawsuit with one of the counsel in the arbitration. The District Court vacated the arbitration award, on the basis that the prior relationship “might have conveyed an impression of possible partiality to a reasonable person.” A panel of the Fifth Circuit affirmed, but in an en banc decision, the full Fifth Circuit reversed, finding that the nondisclosure of “a trivial or insubstantial prior relationship” did not merit vacating the award under the evident partiality standard. The relevant legal standard arises out of a plurality Supreme Court opinion, and the en banc opinion noted a split of the Circuits as to what legal standard for evident partiality comes from the Supreme Court's opinion, with the en banc opinion alinging with the way in which the majority of Circuit Courts had interpreted the opinion. Positive Software Solutions, Inc. v. New Century Mortgage Corp., Case No. 04-11432 (5th Cir. Jan. 18, 2007). There is a prior Reinsurance Focus posting about this case dated June 6, 2006, which includes the Fifth Circuit panel opinion.
District Court rules on reinsurance of auto lease residual value insurance policies
Swiss Re provided a type of reinsurance to Reliance Insurance Company for insurance of residual value insurance policies covering certain automobile risks. When Reliance became financially impaired, Swiss Re litigated liability and damage issues directly with the insured, Keybank USA. In a complicated 67 page opinion on cross motions for summary judgment, the District Court granted in part and denied in part the motions of both parties. This opinion considers multiple issues of contract interpretation, mitigation of damages and expert testimony. The Court recently entered an Order denying the motion of Keybank for reconsideration of the portion of the prior Order that granted partial summary judgment to Swiss Re with respect to auto leases that were part of Keybank's lease extension program. Reliance Insurance Co. v. Keybank U.S.A., Case no. 01-62 (USDC N.D. Ohio Dec. 20, 2006).