Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

You are here: Home / Archives for Arbitration / Court Decisions / Reinsurance Claims

Reinsurance Claims

SHORT TERM ASSISTANCE FOR HAITI

by

Haiti is one of sixteen members of the Carribean Catastrophe Risk Insurance Facility (CCRIC), which is a regional parametric trigger cat risk insurance pool that is intended to provide member governments with short term cash payments to bridge the gap between hurricanes or earthquakes and the receipt of contributions from other governments, organizations and individuals. The facility makes payments to member governments after a 14 day waiting period after a qualifying event. The CCRIF is scheduled to make a payment to the Government of Haiti of $8 million on January 26, which is more than 20 times the premium of $385,000 paid by Haiti for this coverage. The World Bank sponsored a donor conference when the CCRIF was founded in 2007, seeking international support for this facility, but pledges of support at that time from countries around the world, the World Bank and other organizations totaled only $47 million. This level of support may have been due in part to the fact that this was the first regional cat risk insurance pool of its kind, and there was uncertainty as to how effective it would be in accomplishing its goal. The CCRIF claims that it provides coverage to its members at approximately 40% less than commercially available coverage, when such coverage is available. While the amount of the CCRIF’s payment to Haiti is not impressive in light of the magnitude of this disaster, perhaps this event will prompt a re-evaluation of the level of international support for the CCRIF as a means of providing short term liquidity for immediate relief efforts for such disasters.

News reports have indicated that a large portion of the losses in Haiti are not insured, making the impact of this disaster for one of the historically poorest nations in the Western Hemisphere even more catastrophic. For sobering details about the impact of this disaster, including post-earthquake population movements in Haiti, details on the humanitarian response, and details about relief contributions from many sources around the world, go to the Relief Web, which is administered by the United Nations’ Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.

This post written by Rollie Goss.

SECOND CIRCUIT AFFIRMS DISMISSAL OF SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE CLASS ACTION AGAINST REINSURER

by

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed a district court decision (reported on this blog March 10, 2009), which dismissed a putative shareholder derivative class action against PXRE Group, Ltd., a publicly traded Bermuda reinsurer, and certain of its directors and officers. The plaintiff shareholders alleged that PXRE intentionally or recklessly understated loss projections in the immediate aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma in 2005, in order to preserve its credit rating. Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed that PXRE failed to take river flooding into account in its loss modeling, and that its loss modeling software was inadequate for much-larger-than-typical hurricane loss modeling, and was based only on typical hurricane loss modeling. The plaintiffs alleged specific misleading statements in press releases that it argued were intended to deceive in advance of public offerings. In an effort to establish scienter, the plaintiffs’ Complaint included allegations purportedly obtained from “confidential informants” from PXRE, including actuaries, a Vice President in charge of loss modeling, and the Chief Actuary of a “peer company.” Citing heightened pleading requirements for securities/fraud type claims, the district court dismissed the case, as plaintiffs had failed to sufficiently allege the bases for its allegations. The Second Circuit court affirmed by short summary order, citing the district court’s “thorough, well-reasoned opinion.” In re PXRE Group, Ltd., No. 09-1370 (2d Cir. Dec. 21, 2009).

This post written by John Pitblado.

ENGLISH HIGH COURT RULES THAT EQUITAS MAY USE ACTUARIAL MODELING TO RECOVER LONDON MARKET EXCESS OF LOSS SPIRAL LOSSES

by

This dispute concerns indemnity for losses stemming from the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989 and the loss of aircraft at the Kuwait International Airport when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990. Equitas Ltd. (“Equitas”), as the assignee of the rights of Lloyd’s syndicates, brought claims against R&Q Reinsurance Company Ltd. (“R&Q”) under reinsurance contracts written by R&Q within the London Market Excess of Loss spiral. Equitas argued that recoverable losses were capable of being proved, Equitas had succeeded in proving these losses to a standard of the balance of probabilities through the use of actuarial modeling, and, therefore, Equitas was entitled to recovery. R&Q argued against any recovery unless Equitas could prove contract by contract, at each level of the spiral, that the sums claimed were properly due. The High Court sided with Equitas, ruling that how Equitas proved losses was one of fact or evidence. Equitas was not required to prove losses contract by contract at each level of the spiral. The High Court next ruled that actuarial modeling, although imperfect, was an acceptable solution to prove properly recoverable losses incurred by the syndicates. Equitas Ltd. v. R&Q Reins. Co. Ltd., [2009] EWHC 2787 (Comm. Ct. Nov. 11, 2009).

This post written by Dan Crisp.

DISTRICT COURT DENIES SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN OLSON, FINDS REINSURER HAD RIGHT TO SEEK REVIEW

by

In the latest development in the Olsen v. United States case, the US District Court for the Eastern District of Washington issued an Order denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Following a complicated procedural history involving a number of arbitration decisions which were ultimately vacated, Plaintiffs initiated the instant action challenging under the APA the National Appeals Division’s resolution of Plaintiffs’ claims for payment of their crop insurance. Plaintiffs asserted two primary arguments: (1) Reinsurer FCIC had no legal right to revise claim determinations made under a private contract of insurance that FCIC was not a party to; and (2) NAD lacked jurisdiction over the issue of whether Plaintiffs had been overpaid by AGIC. The District Court denied Plaintiffs’ Motion, finding that the insurance contract granted FCIC authority to revise the claim and that administrative review of Plaintiffs’ claims by the NAD was appropriate. Olson v. United States, Case No. 08-5012 (USDC E.D. Wash. Sept. 30, 2009).

This post written by John Black.

COUNTERCLAIMS ALLEGING FRAUD BY UNLICENSED INSURERS DISMISSED

by

A motion to dismiss counterclaims alleging that a property and casualty insurer and reinsurer (collectively, “Everest”) fraudulently conspired to engage in insurance business without the appropriate regulatory approval has been granted. In the primary action, Everest had asserted claims against a group of guarantors for breach of their guaranty obligations. Everest moved for partial summary judgment seeking an order that the guarantors were required to post security in an arbitration, which the court granted. The guarantors filed counterclaims for civil conspiracy, fraud, and negligent misrepresentations, among others. The conspiracy claim was predicated on a violation of state insurance licensing regulations, for which no private right of action existed. The misrepresentation claims asserted that Everest falsely stated that it was validly licensed to write a particular line of insurance, but the claims were barred by the statute of limitations. The court applied a choice-of-law analysis, determining that Colorado limitations periods applied to the parties’ transaction. The court also granted Everest’s motion to strike certain affirmative defenses, holding that the defenses had not been raised at the time of the motion for partial summary judgment, and so had been waived. Everest National Insurance Co. v. Sutton, Case No. 07-722 JAP (USDC D.N.J. Oct. 14, 2009).

This post written by Brian Perryman.