Reinsurance Claims

NATURE OF REINSURANCE RELATIONSHIP PRECLUDES DISMISSAL OF NEGLIGENCE CLAIM BROUGHT BY REINSURER AGAINST CEDENT

April 7, 2015 by Carlton Fields

A federal district court has denied a cedent’s motion to dismiss a negligence claim brought against it by its reinsurer, Old Republic National Title Insurance. The dispute between Old Republic and First American Title arose out of a reinsurance agreement where Old Republic agreed to assume a specified share of First American’s contractual liability under certain title insurance policies. First American negotiated a settlement of claims brought under those title policies and then asserted that Old Republic was obligated under the reinsurance agreement to pay its proportionate share of that sum. Old Republic paid the amount under a full reservation of rights, then sued First American for several causes of action, including negligence. The negligence claim alleged that when Old Republic made the offer for the reinsurance agreement, “First American undertook a duty to underwrite the Title Policies in a reasonably prudent manner and created a special relationship” with Old Republic that First American then breached.

First American moved to dismiss the negligence claim, arguing that the “gist of the action” doctrine precludes it. That doctrine states that an action in tort will not arise for breach of contract unless the tort action arises independent of the existence of the contract. First American argued that its liability stems from the parties’ reinsurance agreement and any duty owed by First American to Old Republic arises solely out of that contractual relationship. The court rejected that argument and the doctrine’s application, stating that the nature of the relationship between reinsurers and cedents, including the exercise of utmost good faith between them, supported a duty grounded in social policy, not solely in contract. The court further found that irrespective of the source of the duty owed, the negligence claim would not be dismissed because Old Republic, in the alternative, sought to rescind the reinsurance agreement and if the rescission claim ultimately prevailed, then the “gist of the action” would no longer be contractual. Old Republic National Title Insurance Co. v. First American Title Insurance Co., No. 8:15-cv-126 (USDC M.D. Fla. March 25, 2015).

This post written by Renee Schimkat.

See our disclaimer.

COURT FINDS IN FAVOR OF HARBINGER ON $50 MILLION CLAIM INVOLVING PURCHASE OF OLD MUTUAL FINANCIAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

April 6, 2015 by Carlton Fields

In a lengthy opinion detailing extensive findings of fact and law, a New York federal district court entered its order in favor of Harbinger F&G, LLC and against OM Group (UK) Limited in an action stemming from claims arising from the stock purchase agreement for the purchase of Old Mutual Financial Life Insurance Company by Harbinger from OM Group. Under the Agreement, Harbinger was entitled to a $50 million purchase price reduction if the Maryland insurance regulators did not approve a post-closing transaction between Old Mutual and Front Street Re, a reinsurance company owned indirectly by Harbinger, and if Harbinger fulfilled certain other conditions precedent. Harbinger was required to prepare and file certain approval documentation in the form agreed to by the parties, to use reasonable best efforts to obtain governmental approval for the reinsurance transaction and, if the transaction was not approved, Harbinger was required to engage in certain remedial efforts. When the post-closing transaction was not approved but OM Group failed to make the purchase price reduction payment, Harbinger sued. After holding a bench trial on those issues not disposed of on summary judgment, the trial court entered judgment in favor of Harbinger but found OM Group was entitled to the payment of certain fees from Harbinger. “>Harbinger F&G, LLC v. OM Group (UK) Limited, Case No. 12 Civ. 05315 (CRK) (USDC S.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2015).

This post written by Leonor Lagomasino.

See our disclaimer.

APPELLATE COURT RULES ON LOSS ALLOCATION AND NOTICE DISPUTES CONCERNING REINSURANCE CLAIM

March 30, 2015 by Carlton Fields

A New York appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment but with modifications. New Hampshire Insurance Company (“New Hampshire”) together with other insurers, settled with Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation (“Kaiser”) for asbestos personal injury related claims. The settlement allocated 100% of the asbestos liability to New Hampshire and their excess reinsurance carrier, Clearwater Insurance Company (“Clearwater”). New Hampshire sought indemnification from Clearwater pursuant to a reinsurance agreement.

Clearwater challenged the allocation in the settlement arrangement alleging that it forced New Hampshire to bear costs associated with other settled claims including bad faith, which was not covered in the excess policy. Clearwater further alleged that New Hampshire breached its notice and reporting duties under the terms of the reinsurance contract. In the very early stages of discovery, New Hampshire moved for summary judgment, arguing in part that Clearwater was bound by the allocation settlement under reinsurance principles. The trial court denied summary judgment and the appellate court affirmed, finding an allocation decision was not immune from scrutiny. Therefore, New Hampshire’s settlement would be judged on its reasonableness, which at this stage of the litigation was “undeveloped.”

Furthermore, the court found another triable issue as to New Hampshire’s notice to Clearwater on loses sustained by Kaiser. Clearwater alleged that it had been prejudiced by New Hampshire’s late notice resulting in “disadvantageous communication agreements” with its reinsurers. Based on these facts, the appellate court found New Hampshire’s summary judgment motion premature.

New Hampshire Ins. Co. v. Clearwater Ins. Co., No. 12779 (N.Y. App. Div. Mar. 24, 2015).

This post written by Matthew Burrows, a law clerk at Carlton Fields in Washington, DC.

See our disclaimer.

REINSURANCE EXCLUSION BARS COVERAGE FOR BAD FAITH LAWSUIT

March 23, 2015 by Carlton Fields

A federal judge in North Carolina recently examined a reinsurance policy provision excluding loss “resulting from any claim for . . . any actual or alleged lack of good faith or unfair dealing in the handling of any claim or obligation under any insurance contract.” The case involved a request for coverage under a reinsurance policy for a lawsuit filed by a doctor against his medical malpractice carrier, the reinsured. The doctor, against whom an excess verdict had been entered, asserted a number of causes of action including bad faith refusal to settle within the policy limit. The reinsurer filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that there was no coverage for the doctor’s lawsuit based on the exclusion mentioned above because all potential loss resulted from the reinsured’s alleged lack of good faith in refusing to settle the underlying matter within the underlying policy limit. Applying North Carolina law, the court agreed with the reinsurer, concluding that all the causes of action alleged a single course of conduct involving a lack of good faith in refusing to settle within the limit. Because all potential loss “resulted from” and was “inextricably intertwined” with the bad faith allegations, the reinsurer had no duty to defend or indemnify.

Greenwich Ins. Co. v. Medical Mutual Ins. Co. of North Carolina, No. 5:14-cv-295 (USDC E.D.N.C. Jan. 27, 2015).

This post written by Catherine Acree.

See our disclaimer.

COURT ALLOWS PUTATIVE CLASS ACTION TO PROCEED WITH DISCOVERY REGARDING EQUITABLE TOLLING OF RESPA VIOLATIONS

March 17, 2015 by Carlton Fields

M&T Bank Corporation, M&T Bank, and M&T Mortgage Reinsurance Company unsuccessfully sought to stay all discovery in a suit brought against it in a putative class action involving allegations that M&T violated the federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. The named plaintiffs were individual borrowers who entered into loan transactions with M&T and paid private mortgage insurance through M&T. M&T placed the private mortgage insurance with certain insurers who then reinsured the policies with M&T’s captive reinsurer. This scheme was allegedly an illegal sham because it did not create a bona fide reinsurance relationship. Moving to dismiss, M&T argued the entire case was barred under RESPA’s one-year limitations period. Plaintiffs countered that, under the doctrine of equitable tolling, M&T’s fraudulent conduct prevented them from discovering the RESPA violation within the one-year period.

The court allowed the plaintiffs to conduct limited discovery related to the equitable tolling argument. This ruling was in part informed by the ruling from a different judge in a companion case, Riddle v. Bank of America. The Riddle court subsequently entered an order in favor of the defendants which the plaintiffs in that case appealed. M&T thus moved for stay of all discovery pending the outcome of the appeal of the Riddle case. The motion was denied. Although some overlap existed, the court found that the Riddle court had too narrowly limited the issue as to whether plaintiffs in that case engaged in due diligence following execution of their mortgages. Cunningham v. M&T Bank Corp., Case No. 1:12-cv-1238 (USDC M.D. Pa. Jan. 14, 2015).

This post written by Leonor Lagomasino.

See our disclaimer.