Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

You are here: Home / Archives for Reinsurance Regulation / Reorganization and Liquidation

Reorganization and Liquidation

COURT ORDERS LIQUIDATION OF REINSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA

by

An Illinois circuit court entered an order for the liquidation of Reinsurance Company of America based upon a finding of insolvency. The court appointed Michael T. McRaith, Illinois Director of Insurance, as liquidator, vesting him with broad powers to take action as required to serve the interests of RCA, its policyholders, beneficiaries, creditors, and the public. RCA’s sole stockholder consented to the entry of the order. People v. Reinsurance Co. of America, Case No. 10 CH 6207 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Apr. 27, 2011).

This post written by Ben Seessel.

REINSURANCE DISPUTE NOT CORE PROCEEDING IN BANKRUPTCY ACTION

by

The Delaware federal district court issued an order directing the district’s bankruptcy court to determine whether an adversary proceeding constituted a “core” proceeding. PRS Insurance Group commenced a chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings in 2001. Thereafter, the trustee appointed filed suit in Ohio against Westchester Fire Insurance Company and ACE INA Holding for breach of two reinsurance agreements and bad faith refusal to pay claims. After the case was transferred to the Delaware federal district court, that court granted the trustee’s request to refer the case to bankruptcy court, but only to determine whether the adversary proceeding constituted a core proceeding. The bankruptcy court concluded that the trustee’s action was not a core proceeding because the case was not under the court’s jurisdiction “under” title 11 or “arising under” title 11. Rather, the reinsurance dispute was separate from the bankruptcy proceeding. Finally, the reinsurance action did not fall under the court’s “arising in” jurisdiction because it did not involve a suit that could arise only in the context of a bankruptcy case. In re PRS Insurance Group, Inc., Case No 00-4070 (Bankr. D. Del. Mar. 30, 2011).

This post written by John Black.

NEW YORK HIGH COURT HOLDS CHOICE OF LAW SHOULD BE EMPLOYED FOR EACH POLICY IN MIDLAND INSURANCE LIQUIDATION PROCEEDINGS

by

On March 17, 2010 we reported on the decision of a New York intermediate appellate court to apply New York law to disallowed claims under insurance policies issued by Midland Insurance Company, an insolvent multiline insurer placed into liquidation in New York. The appellate court based its decision, in part, on the New York “paramount state interest” of ensuring that distributions from an insolvent insurer are made “in an equitable manner.” The appellate court had reversed the trial court, which had found that New York’s standard choice of law analysis for contracts, known as a “grouping of contacts” or “center of gravity” test, should be conducted to determine which laws to apply to each Midland policy. The New York Court of Appeals has now reversed the appellate court and reinstated the trial court’s decision. The high court explained that because the claims of the policyholders “derive from the insurance policies issued by Midland prior to its insolvency,” choice of law analysis for each policy should be employed. In re Liquidation of Midland Insurance Co., 2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 02716 (N.Y. April 5, 2011).

This post written by Michael Wolgin.

APPELLATE COURT REJECTS REINSURER’S PRIORITY CLAIM TO ASSET DISTRIBUTION IN PRIMARY INSURER’S REHABILITATION PROCEEDINGS

by

In the course of Ideal Mutual Insurance Company’s rehabilitation proceedings, Allstate Insurance Company, one of Ideal’s reinsurers, objected to a referee’s report, which denied Allstate’s claim of a vested, and therefore priority, right to the distribution of assets, by retroactive application of a New York insurance statute. The trial court denied Allstate’s motion to reject the referee’s report. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed, disagreeing with Allstate’s reading of the applicable statute, which Allstate argued could not constitutionally be applied retroactively. The appellate court held that the statute could and should be applied retroactively, because the plain language indicated the legislature’s awareness that it would be so applied. In re Ideal Mutual Ins. Co., No. 40275/85 (N.Y. App. Div. March 15, 2011).

This post written by John Pitblado.

BRITISH COURT APPROVES TRANSFER OF REINSURANCE FROM SOMPO JAPAN TO TRANSFERCOM LTD.

by

A justice of the UK Companies Court, Chancery Division, recently approved over the objections of policyholder Axa Corporate Solutions Assurance, a scheme under Part 7 of the UK Financial Services & Markets Act 2000 for the transfer of certain insurance business from Sompo Japan Insurance Inc. to Transfercom Ltd. The scheme involved a transfer of predominantly reinsurance contracts made between 1981 and 2003. The contracts suffered from exposure to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and an airplane crash that occurred later that year, and were in run-off since 2003. In sanctioning the scheme, the justice relied heavily on an expert report and determined that the scheme would be fair to the companies’ respective shareholders and the various underlying policyholders. The justice considered, among other factors, the composition of the business to be transferred, the strength of Transfercom and its parent company, National Indemnity Company, the manner in which Transfercom would fund the run-off of the business, and the overall impact on the security of the underlying policyholders that would result from the transfer. In the Matter of Sompo Japan Insurance Inc., [2011] EWHC 260 (Cos. Ct. Feb. 16, 2011).

This post written by Michael Wolgin.