Reinsurance Claims

COURT CERTIFIES APPEAL IN COMMUTATION/COMMISSION DISPUTE

January 9, 2013 by Carlton Fields

In our September 17, 2012 post, we reported on Acumen Re Management Corporation’s reinsurance-related suit against General Security National Insurance Company, in which it claimed that General improperly entered into commutation agreements with insurers with respect to accounts for which Acumen was receiving, and expected to continue receiving, premium commissions, based on the parties’ agency contracts. General denied any breach. The parties cross-moved for summary judgment. Acumen’s motion was denied outright. General’s motion was granted in part and denied in part. Acumen moved to reconsider, or, in the alternative, for certification for immediate appeal. The court declined reconsideration, but granted certification to appeal, finding the appeal could efficiently dispose of a number of issues before trial. Acumen Re Management Corp. v. General Security National Insurance Co., No. 09-Civ-1796 (USDC S.D.N.Y. Dec. 4, 2012)

This post written by John Pitblado.

See our disclaimer.

THIRD CIRCUIT REFUSES TO RECONSIDER DECISION DENYING REINSURANCE COVERAGE DUE TO INSURER’S LATE NOTICE

November 26, 2012 by Carlton Fields

Pacific Employers Insurance Company petitioned for rehearing of a Third Circuit decision ordering that judgment of non-liability be entered in favor of Global Reinsurance Corporation of America regarding a coverage dispute under the parties’ facultative reinsurance contract. As we earlier reported, the Third Circuit reversed a lower court decision in favor of Pacific under Pennsylvania law. The Third Circuit reversed and, applying New York law, held that Pacific’s late notice of underlying asbestos-related litigation that would likely give rise to claims precluded coverage, even absent a showing of prejudice to Global.

Moving for rehearing, Pacific argued that the court misapprehended and overlooked three points of New York law. First, Pacific argued that the court misapprehended New York law on contract interpretation by, in effect, rewriting the parties’ reinsurance contract to require Pacific to submit a definitive statement of loss even where no liability for a claim had yet been incurred, which could not be read harmoniously with a provision requiring Global to promptly pay Pacific after receiving a definitive statement of loss. Pacific further argued that the court overlooked that there had been no determination that the asbestos-related lawsuits the court held should have been promptly reported by Pacific were claims or occurrences for which Pacific later sought indemnity. Finally, Pacific argued that Global waived its late notice defenses by failing to raise them in its initial brief on appeal. The court denied the petition for panel rehearing without opinion. Pacific Employers Insurance Co. v. Global Reinsurance Corp. of America, No. 11-3234 (3d Cir. Oct. 3, 2012).

This post written by Ben Seessel.

See our disclaimer.

U.S. INSURER AND BERMUDA CAPTIVE REINSURER NOT CONSIDERED ALTER EGOS

November 19, 2012 by Carlton Fields

In a dispute over a long-term care insurance contract, a court rejected the plaintiff’s allegation that five defendants “are an association of entities acting together for the purpose of providing long term care insurance under the name Ability Insurance and also act as the alter egos and/or agents of each other.” The defendants are Ability Reinsurance Holdings (a Bermuda-based holding company) and 4 subsidiaries, including Ability Resources Holdings, Ability Insurance (U.S. insurer), Ability Reinsurance (Bermuda-based captive reinsurer) and Ability Resources, Inc. The court granted a motion for judgment on the pleadings in favor of the Bermuda-based holding company, the Bermuda-based captive reinsurer, and Ability Resources Holdings for lack of personal jurisdiction based on the determination that they do not act as an alter ego for Ability Insurance. The court held that while regulators permitted Ability Insurance to purchase reinsurance from a member of the same corporate family, that fact “does not render the contractual relationship a ‘sham’ or otherwise make Ability Reinsurance (Bermuda) susceptible to suit in Iowa.” The court also dismissed the claims against Ability Resources, Inc., holding that simply alleging that Ability Resources is the alter ego of Ability Insurance, “without more,” failed to satisfy federal pleading requirements. Schultz v. Ability Insurance Co., Case No. 2:11-cv-01020-JSS (USDC N.D. Iowa Oct. 9, 2012).

This post written by Abigail Kortz.

See our disclaimer.

PHILIPPINE INSURER IS NOT ENTITLED TO STAY OF LONDON REINSURERS’ DECLARATORY COVERAGE ACTION REGARDING VESSEL SINKING

October 30, 2012 by Carlton Fields

A consortium of London reinsurers are seeking a declaration from an English court regarding their duty to indemnify Philippine insurer Oriental Insurance Company for losses resulting from the sinking of a cargo passenger ship during Typhoon Frank in 2008. The sinking, which caused widespread outrage in the Philippines due to the vessel’s failure to heed storm warnings resulted in over 500 deaths and significant property loss. The reinsurance contract contained a “Typhoon Warranty,” which voided the policy if an otherwise covered vessel left port during a typhoon or storm warning. Oriental’s underlying policy with the ship owner contained a virtually identical clause. Oriental, facing massive claims and litigation in the Philippines, sought a stay of the proceedings initiated by the British reinsurers, arguing that their action was premature given the reinsurance contract’s “follow the fortunes” clause and significant unresolved claims pending in the Philippine courts. The lower court dismissed Oriental’s application for a stay, holding that such relief should only be granted in “rare and compelling circumstances,” which were not present. The appellate court dismissed the appeal with “little enthusiasm,” finding the lower court’s decision correct but noting its apparent “unfairness.” In particular, as one justice noted, the reinsurers’ action might force Oriental to assert in the London courts that the “Typhoon Warranty” did not apply, a position diametrically opposed to the one it would wish to take in defending ongoing and imminent coverage suits in the Philippines. Amlin Corp. Member Ltd. v. Oriental Assurance Corp., [2012] EWCA Civ. 1341 (Royal Courts of Justice, Queen Bench Division, Commercial Court Oct. 17, 2012).

This post written by Ben Seessel.
See our disclaimer.

COURT AFFIRMS JUDGMENT FOR REINSURER IN COMMUTATION DISPUTE

October 29, 2012 by Carlton Fields

Plaintiff, a reinsurer, and defendant, a holding company of several primary insurers, were parties to reinsurance agreements covering certain liabilities of the defendant’s member companies. In 2004, the parties entered into a commutation agreement. The agreement required the plaintiff to make a payment of $15,248,338 to the defendant “in full satisfaction of the Reinsurer’s past, present and future net liability” under the reinsurance agreements. Thereafter, the defendant continued to pay premiums under one set of the reinsurance agreements, and the plaintiff continued to make claims payments to the defendant under those agreements, despite the commutation. The plaintiff discovered its error in 2008, stopped claims payments and refused further premium. However, the defendant took the position that the commutation did not cover the agreements under which it continued to pay premiums and under which plaintiff had continued to pay claims. The plaintiff filed suit seeking a declaration that the subject agreements were covered by the commutation, and seeking recoupment of the approximately $500,000 in claims payments it believed it made in error from 2004 to 2008. The trial court granted judgment to the plaintiff, including the monetary relief, and the defendant appealed, arguing that the commutation agreement was ambiguous. The Connecticut Appellate Court disagreed, affirming the verdict in favor of the plaintiff. Trenwick America Reinsurance Corp. v. W.R. Berkley Corp., No. AC 33388 (Conn. App. Ct. Oct. 23, 2012).

This post written by John Pitblado.

See our disclaimer.