Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

You are here: Home / Archives for Reinsurance Transactions

Reinsurance Transactions

STOP-LOSS POLICY PREMIUMS SUBJECT TO MISSOURI’S DIRECT PREMIUM TAX

by

American National Life Insurance Company of Texas (“American National”) sells stop-loss insurance policies in Missouri, and a dispute developed as to whether premiums for such coverage were subject to the state’s direct premium tax. American National paid the tax under protest and filed a claim for refund, which was denied by the Department of Revenue, which was affirmed in an administrative hearing. The Missouri Supreme Court reviewed the decision because the case involved the construction of state revenue laws. American National argued that the stop-loss policies are reinsurance and not subject to the direct premium tax. The court looked to Black’s Law Dictionary and other sources and concluded that a tax on “direct premiums received” is a tax imposed upon consideration paid by an insured to an insurer for a contract of insurance. The court rejected American National’s reinsurance argument, affirming the decisions below. American National Life Insurance Co. of Texas v. Director of Revenue, Case No. SC89064 (Mo. Nov. 4, 2008).

This post written by Dan Crisp.

REINSURANCE COMPANIES VICTORIOUS IN SECURITIES FRAUD CLASS ACTIONS ARISING OUT OF CAT LOSSES

by

Two reinsurance companies have prevailed on motions to dismiss in shareholder securities law putative class actions over the restatements of loss levels from cat events, illustrating that the process of estimating cat losses accurately may be challenging, and that companies are not guarantors of the completeness and accuracy of that process. PXRE prevailed in a lawsuit alleging a scheme to understate losses arising out of a series of hurricanes that devastated the Gulf Coast in 2005, restating the amount of losses several times. Judge Sullivan granted PXRE’s motion to dismiss, finding that plaintiffs “failed to plead that defendants were reckless in not knowing about the flaws in PXRE’s calculation of its loss estimates.” In re PXRE Group, Ltd., Securities Litigation, No. 06 CIV 3410 (S.D.N.Y. March 5, 2009). Judge Sullivan issued an order in a similar individual case filed against PXRE implying that he will follow the same course in that action. Anegada Master Fund Ltd v. PXRE Group Ltd., No. 08 Civ 10584 (S.D.N.Y. March 5, 2009).

Quanta Capital Holdings Ltd. (“Quanta”) issued several estimated loss projections relating to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita that ranged from $42-$68.5 million, resulting in multiple rating downgrades, forcing Quanta to cease writing new insurance and reinsurance business and to sell its remaining insurance and reinsurance portfolios. Noting the conjectural nature of insurance reserves established for losses that have been incurred but not yet reported, the court ruled that the Complaint did not put forth sufficient factual allegations such that the court could plausibly find that the loss estimate included in the offering documents was a material untruth at the time it was made, especially since the adjusted estimate was based on a single business interruption claim. The district court also held that the Complaint did not meet applicable heightened pleading requirements, and that some of the claims failed because the $68.5 million preliminary loss estimate was protected by the “bespeaks caution” doctrine. Zirkin v. Quanta Capital Holdings Ltd., Case No. 07-851 (USDC S.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2009).

This post written by Rollie Goss.

RECENT REPORTS PROVIDE COMPREHENSIVE VIEW OF REINSURANCE INDUSTRY

by

Readers may obtain a fairly comprehensive view of the global reinsurance industry from reading three reports:

This post written by Rollie Goss.

REN RE FOUNDER AND FORMER CEO LIABLE FOR SECURITIES FRAUD

by

The most recent development in the saga of Ren Re’s finite reinsurance story is a civil enforcement action by the SEC alleging federal securities fraud against Ren Re’s founder and former CEO and Chairman, James Stanard. After a bench trial, the court entered a detailed set of findings and conclusions, concluding that the accounting for one of the reinsurance transactions at issue had been fraudulent. The court found Stanard liable for violations of the anti-fraud provisions of Securities Act Section 17(a) and Exchange Act Section 10(b). The court also determined that Stanard violated Exchange Act Rule 13(a)-14, Rule 13b2-1 (Falsification of Accounting Records), Rule 13b2-2, 13(b)(5) and found Stanard liable for aiding and abetting liability for the above violations.

The court entered a final judgment permanently enjoining Stanard from future violations of the federal securities laws but did not bar him from serving as an officer or director of a public company in the future. The court ordered Stanard to pay $100,000 as a civil penalty. SEC v. Standard, Merritt & Cash, Case No. 06-7736 (USDC S.D.N.Y. Jan. 27, 2009).

This post written by John Black.

LIFE INSURERS LOOK TO STATES FOR CAPTIAL AND RESERVE RELIEF AFTER NAIC REJECTS INDUSTRY-WIDE RELIEF

by

In the aftermath of the NAIC vote rejecting the requests of the American Council of Life Insurers for industry-wide capital and reserve relief, individual companies have applied to their domiciliary regulators for relief. Some state insurance departments have used permitted practice rules to allow companies temporary relief. For example, the Iowa Department, in Bulletin 09-01, has adopted a modified practice of accounting for deferred taxes which has provided relief to at least ten companies. The Ohio Department has adopted three bulletins, 2009-02, 2009-03 and 2009-04, which provide relief through three different accounting practices. These changes reportedly will provide relief to 20 companies. Connecticut and Indiana have also provided relief to companies domiciled in their state. It is unclear what the impact will be if states approve different and potentially conflicting practices.

This post written by Rollie Goss.