Reinsurance Claims

District Court Predicts that Alabama Supreme Court Would Refuse to Extend Bad Faith to Reinsurance Disputes

April 13, 2021 by Brendan Gooley

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama recently predicted that the Alabama Supreme Court would refuse to recognize bad faith claims in the context of reinsurance disputes if it was presented with the question. The district court therefore granted a reinsurer’s motion to dismiss several bad faith claims against it.

Alabama Municipal Insurance Corporation (“AMIC”) sued Munich Reinsurance America, Inc. for purportedly underpaying several reinsurance claims by approximately $1.9 million. AMIC asserted bad faith claims as part of its suit. Munich Re moved to dismiss those claims, arguing Alabama does not (or rather, would not) recognize bad faith in the context of reinsurance disputes.

The district court agreed. It therefore granted Munich Re’s motion to dismiss and denied a motion by AMIC to amend. In sum, the court noted that the Alabama Supreme Court has limited bad faith claims to insurance situations “that most resemble typical insurance contracts” (e.g., those in which the insured is a consumer or individual, etc.) The district court noted that the Alabama Supreme Court declined to extend the tort to a situation involving a dispute between a primary and excess insurer and that another United States district court had predicted “that the Alabama Supreme Court would not choose to extend the tort to suretyships.” The district court noted that the tort was designed to protect vulnerable insureds who have little negotiating power when signing insurance contracts and that the insurer-reinsurer dynamic is not such a situation.

The court therefore predicted that the Alabama Supreme Court would not recognize bad faith claims in the context of insurer-reinsurer disputes and dismissed those claims.

Alabama Municipal Ins. Corp. v. Munich Reinsurance Am., Inc., No. 2:20-cv-00300-MHT-JTA (Doc. No. March 16, 2021).

London Court of Appeal Vacates and Remands Decision Blocking Transfer of Approximately 370K Annuity Policies

March 1, 2021 by Brendan Gooley

A London Court of Appeal recently vacated and remanded a High Court’s decision precluding the approval of a deal to transfer approximately 370,000 annuities after concluding that the High Court made several errors in its analysis of the relevant factors in play.

Prudential Assurance Co. (PAC) and Rothesay Life PLC entered into a reinsurance agreement “to transfer the majority of the economic risk and reward of the annuity business covered by the agreement from PAC to Rothesay.” The “assets backing the annuity policies were transferred by PAC to Rothesay as part of the premium for the reinsurance.”

A separate business transfer agreement “contemplated that the parties would cooperate to achieve the actual transfer of th[e] business through” regulatory and court approval.

As part of the approval process, the parties asked the High Court of Justice of the Business and Property Courts in London “to sanction a scheme … providing for the transfer from PAC to Rothesay of some 370,000 annuity policies written by PAC” under the United Kingdom’s Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, which permits discretionary court approval of such schemes if “in all the circumstances of the case, it is appropriate to sanction the scheme.”

The High Court declined to approve the scheme. In short, the court did so because, among other things, (1) “Rothesay did not have the same capital management policies or the backing of a large well-resourced group” (in other words, PAC, which was part of the Prudential family, had much more support from its parent in the event of a financial crisis) and (2) “it had been reasonable, in the light of PAC’s sales materials, age and reputation, for policyholders to have chosen PAC on the basis of an assumption that it would not seek to transfer their policies” (in other words, policyholders selected PAC for its financial strength and reputation and reasonably believed that they would be dealing with PAC for the life of their annuities, which could be decades).

PAC and Rothesay appealed, and the Court of Appeal vacated and remanded.

In sum, the Court of Appeal held, among other things, that the High Court “ought not to have concluded that there was a material disparity between the non-contractual external support potentially available for each of PAC and Rothesay” (put differently, the court wrongly believed Rothesay had less support from its parent than PAC had from its parent) because the High Court “disregarded the opinion of [an independent] expert and the [Prudential Regulation Authority] as to [PAC’s and Rothesay’s] future financial resilience on the false basis that those opinions were themselves founded upon only a snapshot of the current year” when they were not.

Even putting that aside, the Court of Appeal explained that the theoretical availability of “non-contractual parental support” that the High Court felt would be provided by PAC’s parent (Prudential) to protect its reputation in the event of a financial crisis at PAC was irrelevant because it was not proper to “assume that any non-contractual parental support will be available in the future” because, among other things, “[p]arents can never be required to support their subsidiaries” and “parents of insurers are always at liberty to sell their regulated subsidiaries.” The independent expert had, in any event, concluded that the risk of either “PAC or Rothesay needing external support in the future was remote,” and the High Court failed to give that opinion proper weight.

Turning to the High Court’s analysis concerning the policyholders’ decisions and expectations, the Court of Appeal concluded that the High Court “ought not to have accorded any weight to the fact that the objecting policyholders chose PAC on the basis of its age, venerability and established reputation, and reasonably assumed that PAC would always provide their annuities” because such subjective considerations were irrelevant and the “only correct question was whether the transfer would have a material adverse effect on the security of their benefits.”

In re Prudential Assurance Co., No. [2020] EWCA Civ 1626 (Feb. 12, 2020).

New Jersey Supreme Court Affirms $56M Refund to Johnson & Johnson for Overpayment of Insurance Premium Tax

February 12, 2021 by Chael Clark

The New Jersey Supreme Court recently ruled that Johnson & Johnson is required to pay an insurance premium tax (IPT) based only on its premiums for risks located within the state of New Jersey rather than nationwide, entitling the company to a $56 million tax refund.

Prior to 2011, New Jersey insurance laws required J&J, as a holder of self-procured insurance, to pay its IPT based only on risks located in New Jersey. However, in a 2011 amendment to the state’s insurance laws, the Legislature authorized additional taxation on surplus lines insurance policies by adding the following sentence to N.J.S.A. 17:22-6.64: “If a surplus lines policy covers risks or exposures in this State and other states, where this State is the home state, … the tax payable pursuant to this section shall be based on the total United States premium for the applicable policy.” J&J, despite not being a holder of surplus lines coverage, thereafter voluntarily increased its IPT payments to reflect the amount due on its nationwide insurance premiums. In November 2015, J&J filed a claim with the New Jersey Department of Banking and Insurance (DOBI) and the director of the Division of Taxation, seeking a refund of nearly $56 million in excess IPT that it had paid since 2011.

After the division denied its refund claim, J&J filed a complaint in the Tax Court. The Tax Court found in favor of the DOBI and the division, concluding that the 2011 amendments that authorized the collection of IPT for surplus lines insurance coverage based on total nationwide premiums applied equally to self-procured coverage. The Appellate Division reversed, finding that J&J’s IPT obligations should have continued to be based solely on the risks it insured that were located within New Jersey. Stressing that the original plain language of the statute “clearly limited J&J’s tax liability to the risks it insured in New Jersey [and] was not changed in any way, shape, or form in the 2011 amendment,” the Appellate Division explained that it was “bound to follow and apply” that language. The Appellate Division ultimately declared itself unable to conclude that the New Jersey Legislature, by specifically stating that the amendment applied only to surplus lines insurance coverage, likewise intended to extend it to self-procured coverage.

In a one-paragraph majority decision, the New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed the ruling “substantially for the reasons expressed” by the Appellate Division.

Southern District of New York Rejects Reinsurer’s Claim that Exhaustion Provision Was Not Met; Concludes Indemnification Was Required Under Follow-the-Settlement Clause

December 14, 2020 by Brendan Gooley

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York rejected a reinsurer’s denial of a claim. The court disagreed with the reinsurer’s position than exhaustion language had not been satisfied, and found the exhaustion language ambiguous and concluded that payment was required under a “follow-the-settlement” clause in the reinsurance certificate.

Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company issued three excess liability policies to Asarco. The third policy (“Policy 3”) provided “coverage of $20 million for losses in excess of $75 million in excess of a $3 million self-insured retention for the period March 15, 1983 to March 15, 1984.”

General Accident Insurance Company reinsured Policy 3 under a facultative reinsurance contract in which it assumed “15% . . . of the risk assumed in Policy 3.” OneBeacon Insurance Company subsequently became the successor-in-interest to General Accident.

Asarco filed an action against Fireman’s seeking coverage for asbestos exposure. Fireman’s estimated its exposure at $50.3 million. It settled with Asarco for $35 million and allocated a portion of that settlement to Policy 3 in accordance with its exposure analysis.

Fireman’s then billed OneBeacon pursuant to the reinsurance agreement. OneBeacon denied Fireman’s claim, asserting that the policies underlying Policy 3 had not been exhausted.

The court granted summary judgment to Fireman’s. In short, the court explained that the reinsurance certificate contained a “follow-the-settlements” provision that required OneBeacon to make payments in accordance with Fireman’s good-faith settlement, which was reasonable. That clause was not trumped by any exhaustion clause in Fireman’s policies because the term exhaustion was ambiguous within the meaning of Fireman’s policies.

Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. OneBeacon Ins. Co., No. 14-civ-4718 (PGG) (Oct. 19, 2020).

New York Federal Court Confirms Arbitration Award Where Plaintiff Offered No Grounds to Vacate, Modify, or Correct Award

September 1, 2020 by Christina Gallo

PB Life and Annuity Co. Ltd. brought this action seeking a declaratory judgment that a breach of contract dispute with Universal Life Insurance Co. was not subject to arbitration and must be litigated in federal or state courts in New York. Universal Life filed a motion to compel arbitration, and PB Life filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, which the parties later agreed would be converted into a motion for a permanent injunction.

We have previously addressed the district court’s May 12, 2020, decision granting Universal Life’s motion to compel arbitration and denying the plaintiff’s motion for a permanent injunction of the arbitration.

On June 2, 2020, the arbitral panel issued an interim award to Universal Life. Universal Life subsequently moved to confirm the arbitration award, and PB Life cross-moved to vacate the award on four grounds:

1. Whether the Panel Denied PB Life Due Process

PB Life argued that the arbitral panel denied it a fair opportunity to present its case under the Federal Arbitration Act and the New York Convention because PB Life was not given the opportunity to generate new independent expert reports showing the value of the trust assets, or the opportunity to obtain important discovery from Universal Life on the same issue. The court rejected PB Life’s argument, noting that the basis for the panel’s ruling was not the value of the assets in the trust account, but rather whether they were qualifying assets, and that the panel’s conclusion that they were not qualifying would not be undermined by evidence that the assets were valuable. The court found that PB Life “does little more than complain that the panel issued its interim award without conducting a full hearing on the merits of its defenses.”

2. Whether the Award Was Entered in Manifest Disregard of the Law

PB Life argued that the panel manifestly disregarded the law by finding irreparable harm when Universal Life sought money damages alone. The court found that PB Life failed to provide any law that is contrary to the panel’s decision or provide any basis for its assertion that the panel misapplied the law to find “immediate and irreparable loss or damage” other than its bare disagreement with the outcome.

3. Whether Recognition or Enforcement of the Award Would Be Contrary to Public Policy

PB Life argued that the award would be contrary to public policy under the Convention because its recognition or enforcement would require PB Life to violate a temporary restraining order entered by a North Carolina state court to which PB Life voluntarily subjected itself.

The court construed PB Life’s arguments in one of two ways:

First, that PB Life argued the temporary restraining order relieved it of its obligations under the reinsurance agreement. The court rejected this argument, finding that PB Life forfeited such an argument when it failed to raise this argument before the panel.
Second, that PB Life was in essence stating a restraint on the power of the court – that it would be contrary to public policy for the court to enter a judgment that would require PB Life to violate an order of another court. Again, the court rejected PB Life’s argument, finding that PB Life offered no reason to believe that the North Carolina state court would not honor the district court’s judgment, nor identified any public policy that prevents a second court from awarding judgment in favor of a party entitled to it simply because the defendant is subject to a prior court order from an earlier court that would make compliance difficult or impossible.

Simply put, PB Life had not identified any public policy that prevented the court from ordering interim relief in favor of Universal Life that the panel determined Universal Life was plainly entitled to under the Convention and the FAA. The panel found in favor of Universal Life, and under governing law, Universal Life was entitled to confirmation of the award. The court advised that to the extent the judgment conflicts with that of the temporary restraining order in the North Carolina court, PB Life has the means to address that conflict by either petitioning the North Carolina court for relief or, if the plaintiffs in the North Carolina proceeding can successfully resist, find another way to satisfy those parties.

4. Whether the Dispute Is Arbitrable

Lastly, PB Life argued that the dispute was not arbitrable because the arbitration clause of the reinsurance agreement was superseded by the trust agreement. The court stood by its original decision, which held that the reinsurance agreement and its arbitration clause were not superseded by the trust agreement and that the question of arbitrability was for the arbitrators to decide, who ultimately determined that the dispute was arbitrable. The court found that PB Life failed to show an “intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.”

Ultimately concluding that PB Life had not provided any ground to vacate, modify, or correct the award, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York confirmed the arbitration award.

PB Life & Annuity Co. v. Universal Life Insurance Co., No. 1:20-cv-02284 (S.D.N.Y. July 30, 2020).