After holding that the follow the fortunes doctrine required a reinsurer to pay claims for business interruption and property damage at a theme park due to Hurricane Floyd in 1999 (see August 16, 2006 post to this blog), a Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation holding that the reinsurance claim was not subject to the Texas prompt payment statute, Texas Insurance Code article 21.55. Houston Casualty filed objections to the Report and Recommendation, and the district court rejected the objections, adopting the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation in a two sentence Order. Houston Cas. Co. v. Lexington Ins. Co., Case No. 05-1804 (USDC S.D. Tex. June 25, 2007).
Reinsurance Claims
COURT ALLOWS CASE AGAINST DIRECTORS OF MISSISSIPPI WINDSTORM UNDERWRITERS ASSOCIATION TO PROCEED
It has been estimated that as a result of Hurrican Katrina, the Mississippi Windstorm Underwriters Association will pay its insurance company members approximately $700 million in claims. The Association has only $175 million in reinsurance. A number of members have sued various members of the Association and individuals, who allegedly were members of the Board of Directors of the Association, contending that they breached fiduciary duties and committed other wrongdoing in failing to procure additional reinsurance for the Association. The Association purchased reinsurance to cover a 250 year event; the Plaintiffs contend that it should have purchased reinsurance to cover a 500 year event. A US District Court has denied a motion to dismiss and denied cross motions for summary judgment. The Motion to Dismiss had contended that the dispute was subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Mississippi Insurance Commissioner. This theory was rejected, in part because the Court found that any administrative remedy that the Insurance Department could provde would not be adequate. The Motion for Summary Judgment was denied because of factual disputes as to whether Board members were member companies or individuals, and if individuals, whether the individuals served in an individual capacity or as representatives of member companies.
REINSURER’S ATTEMPT TO ENFORCE INDEMNITY AGREEMENT FAILS
This dispute centered around a 1995 General Indemnity Agreement (“GIA”) between defendant PEC and Amwest, a surety company. Pursuant to the GIA, PEC agreed to indemnify Amwest in connection with any bonds written on behalf of PEC. In late 1998 or early 1999, Amwest issued a performance bond to the United States as obligee, with PEC as principal, in connection with a construction contract for the Army Corps of Engineers. Shortly thereafter, Swiss Re agreed to provide reinsurance to Amwest on that performance bond.
Two years later, a Nebraska court declared Amwest insolvent and entered an order of liquidation. When PEC was unable to obtain substitute bonding for the Corps construction project, PEC’s involvement was terminated and Swiss Re was required to complete the project at a cost of over 1.4 million dollars, exclusive of legal fees. Swiss Re filed the instant case seeking to enforce the indemnity agreement between Amwest and PEC.
The district court held that the indemnity agreement did not require PEC to indemnify Swiss Re. Specifically, the court concluded that: (1) the indemnity agreement was unenforceable due to a failure of consideration and/or Amwest’s prior material breach of the contract; and (2) the GIA was unenforceable under the doctrine of ‘frustration of purpose.’ Swiss Reinsurance v. Airport Industrial Park doing business as P.E.C. Contracting Engineers, Case No. 2:05-cv-01127 (USDC W.D. Pa. Aug. 27, 2007).
DEVELOPMENTS IN TWO PRIOR REPORTED UK MATTERS REGARDING BROKERS AND NORTH KOREA
In posts to this blog on September 22, 2006 and February 21, 2007, we reported on developments in a case in UK courts alleging fraud by a broker in the placement of reinsurance and a fraudulent, undisclosed binder addendum that substantially increased the brokers' compensation. The UK Court of Appeals has affirmed decisions of the lower court in this matter. R + V Versicherung AG v. Risk Insurance and Reinsurance Solutions SA, [2007] EWCA Civ. 807 (July 30, 2007).
In a December 5, 2006 post, we described a dispute over allegedly fraudulent reinsurance claims from North Korean insurers. The insurers filed suit in the UK to enforce the judgment of a North Korean court, and a judge has stricken a defense alleged by the reinsurers that they had reached a settlement of the claims. The court found that there was no reasonable prospect that the defense could be established given the absence of a written confirmation of the alleged settlement. Other defenses remain at issue. Korea National Insurance Corp. v. Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty AG, [2007] EWHC 1744 (Comm. July 24, 2007).
CREDITOR’S BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIM BARRED BY FAILURE TO FILE CLAIM IN SEPARATE LIQUIDATION PROCEEDING
Plaintiff, Propak Loigistics, insured workers' compensation risks with Clarendon National Insurance Company, which reinsured the risks with Defendant, Foundation Insurance Company. Foundation entered into a risk sharing agreement directly with Propak, which was essentially an experience rating agreement. Foundation was placed in liquidation. Clarendon filed a timely claim in the liquidation estate, but Propak did not. The liquidation court entered an order distributing the remaining assets of Foundation to Clarendon. Because Propak failed to file notice of its claims under the Liquidation Order, the court held that it was barred from obtaining relief, noting that under South Carolina law, “the failure of a potential creditor to submit a claim in the liquidation estate, or have an ancillary estate opened in a reciprocal state, is conclusive as to that creditor’s rights.” Propak Logistics v. Foundation Ins. Co., No. 04-2178 (W.D.Ark., August 8, 2007).