Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

You are here: Home / Archives for Week's Best Posts

Week's Best Posts

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.

CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT ATTEMPTS TO THREAD THE UNCONSCIONABILITY NEEDLE

by

California’s appellate courts have had a strained relationship with the U.S. Supreme Court when it comes to enforcement of the FAA in the last few years. Illustrative of this tension is a recent decision captioned Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moreno, No. S174475 (Cal. Oct. 17, 2013) (“Sonic II”). The Court in Sonic II was instructed by the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider its ruling in Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moreno, 51 Cal. 4th 659 (2011) (“Sonic I”), which invalidated an arbitration agreement.

The dispute arose from an employment wage dispute. The heart of the case was whether California’s statutory employment dispute mandatory ‘pre-screening’ process (referred to as a “Berman hearing”) could be waived by an arbitration agreement, such as the one in the employment contract at issue. In Sonic I, the Court held that an arbitration agreement that waives a Berman hearing is unconscionable and unenforceable. Shortly after Sonic I was released, the U.S. Supreme Court released its decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. __ [131 S.Ct. 1740] (2011) (“Concepcion”). The defendant thereafter sought review of Sonic I by the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted certiorari and reversed, citing Concepcion and the FAA’s strong presumption in favor of arbitration.

On remand, in Sonic II, the Court held that, consistent with Concepcion, “the FAA preempts our state-law rule categorically prohibiting waiver of a Berman hearing.” However, it left the trial court some wiggle room to nevertheless find the agreement unconscionable on remand, holding (and citing Concepcion) that “state courts may continue to enforce unconscionability rules that do not interfere with fundamental attributes of arbitration.”

Based on its finding that evidence relevant to such an unconscionability claim was not developed, it remanded to the trial court to determine in the first instance whether the present arbitration agreement is unconscionable.

This post written by John Pitblado.

See our disclaimer.

RISK OF UMPIRE BIAS HELD AN INSUFFICIENT BASIS TO ENJOIN REINSURANCE ARBITRATION

by

In an ongoing reinsurance arbitration between Allstate Insurance Company and OneBeacon American Insurance Company, Allstate unsuccessfully sought to enjoin the arbitration because OneBeacon’s position statement informed the umpire of OneBeacon’s selection of him as umpire. Allstate alleged that this submission (1) violated the arbitration agreement’s umpire selection protocol, which, Allstate argued, implicitly prohibited communications that threatened umpire impartiality, and (2) violated the “reinsurance industry’s custom and practice.” Allstate could not make the requisite showing of “likelihood of success on the merits” to obtain injunctive relief because it misinterpreted the selection protocol, and because “[p]reaward challenges on the basis of bias” are not permitted. Allstate also failed to show “irreparable harm,” given Allstate’s ability to challenge the final award after the arbitration was completed. Concern over potential “lack of neutrality” did not tip the balance of equities in Allstate’s favor, nor did a “technical skirmish over arbitration procedure between two reinsurance companies” rank high in terms of the public’s interest. Allstate Insurance Co. v. OneBeacon American Insurance Co., Case No. 1:13-cv-12368 (USDC D. Mass. Oct. 8, 2013).

This post written by Michael Wolgin.

See our disclaimer.

REINSURER NOT OBLIGATED TO COVER D&O CEDANT

by

An insurance company that provided directors and officers liability to a lottery corporation sought coverage from its reinsurer for an employment litigation judgment entered against the lottery corporation. The reinsurance certificate stated that coverage would not be provided until the insurer’s losses totaled $5 million. The final judgment at issue was $6.7 million, which included $2.4 million in interest. Thus, the issue was whether the $2.4 million in interest was considered a “loss,” which would trigger reinsurance coverage with a final judgment of $6.7 million, or “interest on a judgment,” which would result in a final of judgment of $4.3 million which falls just shy of the $5 million threshold. The court determined that the carefully worded conditions in the reinsurance certificate made it clear that the reinsurer’s obligation to cover a portion of “interest on any judgment” was separate and apart from its obligation to cover losses and granted summary judgment in favor of the reinsurer. Seneca Insurance Co. v. Everest Reinsurance Co., Case No. 11-7846 (USDC S.D.N.Y. Oct. 17, 2013).

This post written by Abigail Kortz.

See our disclaimer.

A FEDERAL “SOLUTION” FOR REINSURANCE FOR CATASTROPHE RISKS?

by

There are three bills pending in Congress concerning reinsurance for catastrophe risks. Such bills have been introduced in prior years and generally have died in committee, and the same is true so far this year. H.R. 240 would authorize the Treasury Department to provide reinsurance to “eligible state programs” for homeowners cat risks. The bill specifically provides that this program “shall not displace or compete with the private insurance or reinsurance markets or the capital market ….” H.R. 737 would establish a non-profit entity which could issue what amounts to cat bonds for its members. The members of this organization would be a state which has established “a reinsurance fund or has authorized the operation of a State residual insurance market entity, or State-sponsored provider of natural catastrophe insurance ….” H.R. 1101 would provide a federal reinsurance program for individual state or multi-state cat risk plans. None of these bills have progressed beyond being referred to a committee. Given the current capacity and pricing of cat risk private reinsurance and cat bonds, these bills appear to present a “solution” in search of a problem.

This post written by Rollie Goss.

See our disclaimer.