Reinsurance Claims

SEEK REINSURANCE WITH CARE: THE REINSURED BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROVING COVERAGE

August 14, 2012 by Carlton Fields

Reiterating that Massachusetts law requires the insured to bear the burden of demonstrating that a claim falls within a policy’s affirmative grant of coverage, the First Circuit affirmed an award of summary judgment to a Canadian reinsurer in an action in diversity brought by an American insurer seeking indemnification of amounts incurred in defending its insured against asbestos-related claims. The court parsed through three years of insurance and reinsurance policies, endorsements thereto, as well as the flow of premium payments, to find corroborative of the parties’ intents both the plain language of the documents and extrinsic evidence, including premium payments and the existence of only an initial-year facultative certificate. The court held that the reinsurance arrangement that existed in the first policy year terminated at the end of that year. OneBeacon Am. Ins. Co. v. Commercial Union Assurance Co. of Canada, No. 11-2072 (1st Cir. July 11, 2012).

This post written by Brian Perryman.

See our disclaimer.

BURDEN RESTS WITH REINSURER TO SHOW LESSER LIABILITY UNDER RETROCESSIONAL INSURANCE AGREEMENT

July 31, 2012 by Carlton Fields

On January 23 and April 12, 2012, we reported on orders concerning liability and damages in a suit involving disputed payment obligations under reinsurance and retrocessional agreements between Munich Re and Tower Insurance. The court recently addressed the parties’ motions in limine designed to determine whether Munich must affirmatively prove that Tower was 100% liable for claims under one of the retrocessional agreements at issue, or whether a burden rested with Tower to show that it was obligated to pay only 10% under certain conditions provided in the agreement. The court interpreted the agreement’s language and found that the burden of proof belonged to Tower because the 10% indemnity provisions constituted policy exclusions, which, under state law, must be “construed narrowly with the onus on the insurer to bring the case within the exclusion.” Munich Reinsurance America, Inc. v. Tower Insurance Co. of New York, Case No. 09-02598 (USDC D.N.J. July 17, 2012).

This post written by Michael Wolgin.

See our disclaimer.

DISTRICT COURT CONFIRMS REINSURANCE ARBITRATION AWARD AGAINST TWO BRAZILIAN COMPANIES

July 30, 2012 by Carlton Fields

Several developments have occurred in the ongoing reinsurance dispute between Aurum Asset Managers and several Brazilian companies. In April, Aurum filed a petition in federal district court to confirm an amended arbitration award, entering judgment in Aurum’s favor, and granting Aurum equitable relief. On June 11th, the district court denied the award as against respondent Banco do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul. The court, however, confirmed the award as against two respondents (Bradesco Companhia de Seguros and Bradesco Auto/Re Companhia de Seguros) unless and until the court received arguments from any party opposing the confirmation prior to June 22nd. On June 26th, having not heard any arguments opposed, the court confirmed the final arbitration award and entered judgment against the two Bradesco entities. Aurum Asset Managers, LLC v. Banco do Estado do Rio Grande do Sol, No. 08-mc-102 (USDC E.D. Pa. June 12, 2012 & June 26, 2012).

This post written by John Black.

See our disclaimer.

INSURANCE POLICIES CONTROL CALCULATION OF “LOSS” APPLICABLE TO “EXCESS OF LOSS” REINSURANCE

June 19, 2012 by Carlton Fields

In a case involving disputed claims made under “excess of loss” facultative reinsurance certificates, a court recently held that the reinsurer’s liability for “losses” should follow the meaning of “loss” and “expense” in the underlying insurance polices, rather than the meanings of those terms as used in the reinsurance certificates. The dispute surrounded whether the reinsurance covered litigation expenses, in addition to the indemnity paid under the underlying insurance policies. The court analyzed the certificates and determined that the liability of the reinsurer in this case should be determined by the scope of liability provided by the underlying insurance policies. Because the reinsurer “had copies of the underlying insurance polices, or at the very least had access to the underlying insurance policies” the reinsurer could be charged with knowledge of the policies’ terms. The court distinguished reinsurance expressly designated as “non-current,” or reinsurance that limits in the certificates coverage to only specific delineated risks. In that scenario, the court explained, “loss” and “expense” would be determined by the certificate, as opposed to the underlying policies. ACE Property & Casualty Insurance Co. v. R & Q Reinsurance Co., Case No. 11081920 (Pa. Ct. Comm. Pl. May 15, 2012).

This post written by Michael Wolgin.

See our disclaimer.

COURT HOLDS HEZBOLLAH LIABLE TO INSURERS FOR $9 BILLION FOR CLAIMS PAID RESULTING FROM SEPTEMBER 11 TERRORIST ATTACKS

June 14, 2012 by Carlton Fields

A federal district court has held that Hezbollah is liable for over $9 billion in damages on subrogation claims brought by insurers under the “business or property” provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act. The insurers’ action was brought to recoup payments made on claims for losses resulting from the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. As we previously reported, the court had entered judgment awarding in excess of $9 billion in damages against Al Qaeda based on the same claims. This order extends the judgment to Hezbollah. Hezbollah and Al Quaeda had been defaulted as to liability in April, 2006. In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, Case No. 03 MDL 1570 (USDC S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2012).

This post written by Ben Seessel.

See our disclaimer.