Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

You are here: Home / Archives for Reinsurance Transactions

Reinsurance Transactions

PUTATIVE CLASS REPRESENTATIVE ACCUSING LIFE INSURER OF “HOLLOW ASSET” REINSURANCE LACKS ARTICLE III STANDING

by

We previously reported on putative class actions pending against life insurers for allegedly misleading customers by engaging in “shadow” or “hollow” reinsurance transactions, doing so most recently on August 3, 2015. In early October, another judge in the Southern District of New York faced the same arguments and ultimately reached the same conclusion that Article III standing was lacking. Plaintiffs alleged that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and MetLife, Inc. had not properly disclosed their reinsurance agreements to customers as part of their transaction purchasing life insurance. According to plaintiffs, MetLife engaged in such conduct as obtaining a reserve credit of over $1 billion based upon letters of credit that were backed by contractual parent guarantees. In particular, plaintiffs pointed to a $315 million letter of credit that the New York Department of Financial Services determined was a “hollow asset” even though MetLife reported it as an admitted asset.

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action seeking damages against MetLife for failure to disclose these transactions and for violating sections of the New York Insurance Law. Plaintiffs, however, could not prove an injury-in-fact and, therefore, lacked Article III standing. Plaintiffs lacked Article III standing, the court found, because they could not show a concrete injury as a result of this conduct. In fact, rather than resulting in higher premiums, as Plaintiffs alleged, “according to an economic study annexed as an exhibit to the complaint, using shadow insurance actually reduces the cost of life insurance policies and, if companies discontinued using shadow insurance, premiums might rise by as much as 10–21%.” Finding that the alleged risk of harm was in the future and not concrete, the court dismissed the case for lack of Article III standing. Robainas v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., No. 14-cv-09926-DLC (USDC S.D.N.Y. Oct. 9, 2015).

This post written by Zach Ludens.

See our disclaimer.

COMPLAINT FAILS TO OVERCOME HEIGHTENED PLEADING STANDARD FOR FRAUD RELATING TO REPORTING OF REINSURER’S LOSSES

by

The Southern District of New York granted Amtrust Financial Services’ motion to dismiss after finding that the plaintiff failed to specifically allege misstatements or omissions necessary to prove scienter in claims related to purported misrepresentations of defendant’s consolidated financial statements. Plaintiff claimed that Amtrust’s financial statements fraudulently misrepresented losses associated with insurance policies, the premiums for which had been ceded to a foreign subsidiary. Amtrust’s foreign subsidiary, located in Luxemburg, operated using an equalization reserve, allowing the reinsurer to offset losses by drawing on the fund. Such reserves are not a feature of U.S. reinsurance companies, and the generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”) does not address how such withdrawals should be accounted. The court held that the alleged misstatements failed to specifically allege any facts relating to fraud or scienter. The complaint did not contain sufficient facts to support a material violation of the GAAP or the required intent to defraud. The court reiterated the notion that GAAP principles are subject to the discretion of management. Absent specific facts relating to an intent to conceal or defraud, the determination relating to accounting principles alone was held to not be sufficient to maintain an action alleging securities fraud. Harris v. Amtrust Financial Services Inc., Case No. 14-CV-736 (USDC S.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2015).

This post written by Joshua S. Wirth, a law clerk at Carlton Fields in Washington, DC.

See our disclaimer.

FEDERAL COURT DISMISSES PUTATIVE CLASS ACTION ACCUSING LIFE INSURER OF FAILING TO DISCLOSE “SHADOW INSURANCE”

by

Plaintiffs alleged that AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company violated New York insurance law prohibiting misrepresentations by insurers of their financial condition, because AXA had not disclosed “shadow transactions” in its filings with the New York Department of Financial Services (“NYDFS”). NYDFS defines “shadow insurance” as the use of captive reinsurers in foreign jurisdictions with lower reserve requirements to do an “end-run around higher reserve requirements.” Plaintiffs contended that AXA was not as financially sound as it had represented because in failing to disclose “shadow transactions,” AXA received higher ratings from rating agencies and was able to post fewer reserves thus selling a product that had undisclosed risks and created an “increased risk to the insurance system as a whole. . . .”

The court denied class certification and granted AXA’s motion to dismiss for lack of Article III standing. Plaintiffs did not allege that their premiums were higher because of the alleged “shadow transactions” nor that they had relied upon AXA’s representations in filings with the NYDFS. Violation of rights created by state law (as opposed to federal law), standing alone, does not allege an “injury” sufficient to establish Article III standing. Plaintiffs needed to have established that at least one of them had suffered an “invasion of a legally protected interest which is . . . concrete and particularized” and “actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” The Court also explained that since plaintiffs never alleged that they would not have purchased the policies had the disclosures been made or that they had suffered any financial harm because of the misrepresentations, the alleged risk of harm was only in the future and was a very tenuous risk at that. Jonathan Ross v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Co., Case No. 14-CV-2904 (USDC S.D.N.Y. July 21, 2015).

This post written by Barry Weissman.

See our disclaimer.

COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMS REJECTION OF CLAIMS RELATING TO CAT BOND

by

We previously posted on a district court’s dismissal, with prejudice, of an Amended Complaint challenging the propriety of payments to the ceding insurer of the Mariah Re catastrophe bond which exhausted the cat bond’s trust account.  The Amended Complaint contended that the payment amount had not been calculated in accordance with the provisions of the cat bond’s documents, and that a lesser amount, which would not have exhausted the trust account, should have been paid instead.  The district court found that the documents clearly set forth the process for calculating the payment amount, and that the payment amount had been calculated in accordance with the contractual agreements.  It therefore dismissed the case with prejudice.  The Court of Appeal, after briefly describing the contractual relationships, simply stated that “[w]e AFFIRM the judgment of the district court for substantially the reasons stated by Judge Sullivan in his opinion of September 30, 2013.”  This result demonstrates the importance of clarity in the drafting of cat bond documents, and may help to reduce whatever uncertainty this lawsuit engendered in the cat bond market.  Mariah Re Limited v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company, No. 14-4062 (2nd Cir. June 30, 2015).

This post written by Rollie Goss.

See our disclaimer.