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

COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA APPROVES REINSURANCE COMMUTATION AGREEMENT

by

On September 4, 2014, the receivership court for the Reliance Insurance Company (“Reliance’) estate (the “Reliance Estate”) approved a settlement agreement allowing the Liquidator to terminate and commute the obligations between Odyssey and Reliance under the reinsurance agreements. The receivership court accepted the liquidator’s representations that the settlement agreement is a fair and reasonable settlement of Odyssey’s obligations to the Reliance estate under the reinsurance agreements and that the payment contemplated under the settlement constituted fair and reasonable value to the Reliance Estate. The Reliance estate will receive an economic benefit amounting to $6,450,000. In re Liquidation of Reliance Insurance Company, Docket No. 1 REL 2011 (Pa. Comm. Ct. Oct. 8, 2014)

This post written by Kelly A. Cruz-Brown.

See our disclaimer.

REINSURERS BEWARE: ATTEND YOUR INSURERS’ REHABILITATION PROCEEDINGS

by

A Wisconsin Court of Appeals recently affirmed an order enjoining a reinsurer from withholding or failing to make payments to an insurer’s segregated account, which the insurer had established for troubled parts of its insurance business, including mortgage-backed securities, credit default swaps, and municipal bonds. Under an approved rehabilitation plan for the troubled segregated account, policyholders were to receive 25% of their claim amounts in cash and the remaining 75% in surplus notes. Although the reinsurer acknowledged an obligation to pay proportionately for the cash portion of any settlement agreements reached, it refused to reimburse the segregated account for the value of any surplus notes provided to policyholders unless and until the segregated account made cash payment on those notes and sought to compel arbitration. The rehabilitation court disagreed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, finding: (1) that the rehabilitation court in Wisconsin had personal jurisdiction over the nonresident reinsurer based on minimum contacts and the reinsurer’s notice of the pending rehabilitation plan; (2) that the rehabilitation court had exclusive jurisdiction to determine any matter relating to a delinquent insurer that would otherwise be subject to an arbitration proceeding; and (3) that the reinsurer’s payment obligations stemmed not only from the contracts themselves, but also from the policies underlying the reinsurance contract. In re Rehabilitation of: Segregated Account of Ambac Assurance Corp., Case No. 2010CV1576 (Wis. Ct. App. Oct. 24, 2013).

This post written by Kyle Whitehead.

See our disclaimer.

LIQUIDATOR FOR RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY SEEKS APPROVAL OF COMMUTATION AGREEMENT WITH REINSURER

by

The Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner, Michael Consedine, moved for approval of a commutation, settlement agreement and release entered into between Reliance Insurance Company (in liquidation) and C.S.C. Assurance, Ltd. Reliance was judicially determined insolvent in 2001, whereupon the Commissioner was appointed as liquidator. C.S.C. is a Class 3A insurer and reinsurer domiciled in Bermuda, which has been in run-off for over ten years. The agreement, if approved, would settle and finalize all facultative and treaty reinsurance contracts between Reliance and C.S.C. that have not already commuted. C.S.C. has agreed to pay $5,500,000 to the Reliance estate in exchange for commuting all such claims. In re Reliance Insurance Co. (in Liquidation), Case No. 1 Rel 2001 (Pa. Commw. Ct. Nov. 19, 2012)

This post written by Ben Seessel.

See our disclaimer.

COMMUTATION AGREEMENTS BETWEEN RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY (IN LIQUIDATION) AND THREE REINSURERS APPROVED

by

A Pennsylvania court has approved commutation agreements between Reliance Insurance Company (in Liquidation) and reinsurers Connecticut General Life Insurance Company (“Connecticut General”), Phoenix Life Insurance Company (“Phoenix”), and Hannover Rueckversicherung AG and E + S Rueckversicherung AG (“Hanover”), respectively. The Reliance Estate will receive $7,044,565 from Connecticut General and $5,017,408 from Phoenix for commuting obligations on reinsurance policies written through Unicover Managers covering workers’ compensation losses. Hanover will pay $4,790,789 to the Reliance Estate in exchange for commuting liabilities on reinsurance contracts covering various lines of business including accident and health, aviation liability, and D&O liability.

This post written by Ben Seessel.

See our disclaimer.

COURT DISMISSES INSURANCE AGENCY’S CLAIMS THAT INSURER FAILED TO DISCLOSE TROUBLED FINANCIAL CONDITION

by

In a bankruptcy adversary proceeding arising out of claims made by an insurer against the debtor insurance agency/reinsurer, a court dismissed the debtor’s counterclaims for breach of fiduciary duty and fraud. The agency contended that the insurer, which itself was in rehabilitation, concealed and misrepresented its poor financial condition and austerity measures that it was taking to address it, which the agency claimed caused it to suffer financial harm and loss of good will. The court held that the agency failed to state claims beyond breach of contract because (1) the insurer was not in a “superior position” of a fiduciary simply by possessing greater knowledge of its internal operations and financial status, and (2) the agency failed to allege facts demonstrating that the insurer owed a separate legal duty to it beyond the obligations of the agency agreement. In re Black, Davis, & Shue Agency, Inc., Case No. 11-00160 (USDC Bankr. M.D. Pa. June 28, 2012).

This post written by Michael Wolgin.

See our disclaimer.