Week's Best Posts

COURT AFFIRMS JUDGMENT FOR REINSURER IN COMMUTATION DISPUTE

October 29, 2012 by Carlton Fields

Plaintiff, a reinsurer, and defendant, a holding company of several primary insurers, were parties to reinsurance agreements covering certain liabilities of the defendant’s member companies. In 2004, the parties entered into a commutation agreement. The agreement required the plaintiff to make a payment of $15,248,338 to the defendant “in full satisfaction of the Reinsurer’s past, present and future net liability” under the reinsurance agreements. Thereafter, the defendant continued to pay premiums under one set of the reinsurance agreements, and the plaintiff continued to make claims payments to the defendant under those agreements, despite the commutation. The plaintiff discovered its error in 2008, stopped claims payments and refused further premium. However, the defendant took the position that the commutation did not cover the agreements under which it continued to pay premiums and under which plaintiff had continued to pay claims. The plaintiff filed suit seeking a declaration that the subject agreements were covered by the commutation, and seeking recoupment of the approximately $500,000 in claims payments it believed it made in error from 2004 to 2008. The trial court granted judgment to the plaintiff, including the monetary relief, and the defendant appealed, arguing that the commutation agreement was ambiguous. The Connecticut Appellate Court disagreed, affirming the verdict in favor of the plaintiff. Trenwick America Reinsurance Corp. v. W.R. Berkley Corp., No. AC 33388 (Conn. App. Ct. Oct. 23, 2012).

This post written by John Pitblado.

See our disclaimer.

CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL APPLIES CONCEPCION AND COMPELS INDIVIDUAL ARBITRATION

October 23, 2012 by Carlton Fields

Plaintiff filed a class action complaint alleging wage and hour violations. He had signed an arbitration agreement which did not contain a class arbitration waiver. The trial court denied a motion to compel arbitration on the basis that the employer had waived arbitration by failing to properly and timely demand arbitration. The court of appeal reversed, ordering individual arbitration, holding that: 1) the defendant did not waive its right to arbitration even though it waited 14 months to move to compel arbitration; and 2) Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act did not bar enforcement of the arbitration agreement at issue. The Supreme Court’s decision in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion prompted the defendant’s delayed motion to compel. Concepcion held that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts California’s Discover Bank rule, which invalidates class arbitration waivers in consumer contracts of adhesion based on a finding of unconscionability. The court of appeal found that prior to Concepcion, the defendant reasonably perceived it would be futile to seek to compel arbitration in light of the Gentry test, which extended the Discover Bank rule to the employment context. The court reasoned that the risk of invalidation “diminished substantially” after Concepcion, but declined to explicitly “decide whether Gentry remains good law after Concepcion.” The employee contended that an order requiring individual arbitration would deprive him of the right to engage in collective legal action as protected by section 7 of the NLRA. This argument was accepted by National Labor Relation Board in D. R. Horton. The court of appeals followed other California court decisions which found Horton inapplicable in California courts. Reyes v. Liberman Broadcasting, Inc., No. B232511 (Cal. Ct. App. August 31, 2012).

This post written by Abigail Kortz.

See our disclaimer.

EU-U.S. DIALOGUE PROJECT REQUESTS PUBLIC COMMENT ON DRAFT REPORTS COMPARING INSURANCE REGIMES IN THE EU AND THE U.S.

October 22, 2012 by Carlton Fields

On September 27, 2012, the Steering Committee of the EU-U.S. Dialogue Project, a collaboration among the European Commission, European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority, the NAIC, and the Federal Insurance Office of the U.S. Department of the Treasury, invited public comment on the reports of seven technical committees comparing certain aspects of the insurance supervisory regimes in the European Union and the United States. The draft report and invitation for comments includes a copy of the seven reports. The seven reports are based on topics deemed to be “fundamentally important to a sound regulatory regime and to the protection of policyholders and financial stability,” namely: (1) professional secrecy and confidentiality, (2) group supervision, (3) solvency and capital requirements, (4) reinsurance and collateral requirements, (5) supervisory reporting, data collection and analysis and disclosure, (6) supervisory peer reviews, and (7) independent third party review and supervisory on-site inspections. The technical committees that prepared the reports were comprised of “experienced professionals from both the European Union as well as the United States, specifically, from FIO, the EC, the NAIC, and EIOPA, as well as representatives from state insurance regulatory agencies in the United States and competent authorities of EU Member States.” Hearings were scheduled for October 12 and 16, 2012 in Washington D.C. and Brussels, respectively, and the deadline for written submissions is October 28, 2012.

This post written by Michael Wolgin.

See our disclaimer.

COURT GRANTS PETITION TO CONFIRM FOREIGN ARBITRAL AWARDS, DENIES MOTION TO SEAL

October 16, 2012 by Carlton Fields

Century Indemnity Company brought a petition to confirm three foreign arbitral awards it secured against AXA Belgium. AXA cross-petitioned to vacate the awards. Both parties filed motions to seal certain documents submitted to the court in light of a confidentiality agreement covering the arbitrations. The parties’ dispute centered on claimed underpayments by AXA, and alleged offsets AXA claimed it was entitled to, which it claimed negated amounts owed to Century under certain reinsurance treaties. Century initiated multiple arbitrations arising throughout the history of the parties’ payment disputes, which arbitrations were ultimately consolidated. The consolidated arbitration hearing took place in 2011. In February 2012, the panel rendered a decision favorable to Century, including a bad faith finding against AXA which resulted in an order of $250,000, or the amount of Century’s fees and costs, whichever was lesser. AXA challenged the award under the FAA, but the Court held that it failed to demonstrate the panel exceeded its authority under the submission, or that its decision was in manifest disregard of the law. The Court also addressed both parties’ motion to seal the record, finding neither demonstrated sufficient bases to seal, given the strong presumption in favor of public access to court files. Century Indemnity Co. v. AXA Belgium, No. 11 Civ. 7263 (USDC S.D.N.Y. Sept. 24, 2012).

This post written by John Pitblado.

See our disclaimer.

RETROCESSIONAIRE’S RESCISSION COUNTERCLAIM THAT REINSURER FAILED TO ACT IN UTMOST GOOD FAITH SURVIVES SUMMARY JUDGMENT

October 15, 2012 by Carlton Fields

Munich Re sued retrocessionaire ANICO based on ANICO’s refusal to pay over $4 million allegedly due under excess loss policies issued to Munich Re to provide retrocessional cover on Munich Re’s reinsurance of Everest National’s workers compensation program. After discovery closed, ANICO counterclaimed for rescission, alleging that facts revealed in discovery demonstrated that Munich Re failed to abide by its duty of utmost good faith or uberrimae fidei by failing to disclose its own internal loss calculations that ANICO claimed would have been material to ANICO’s decision to issue the retrocessional policies. The parties cross-moved for summary judgment on ANICO’s counterclaim for rescission and Munich Re moved for summary judgment on aspects of its breach of contract and declaratory judgment claims.

The federal district court denied the parties’ cross-motion on ANICO’s rescission counterclaim, holding that there were issues of fact regarding whether ANICO reasonably would have considered Munich Re’s internal loss calculations material and, further, whether Munich Re should have known that ANICO would have deemed this information material. With respect to Munich Re’s breach of contract claim, the court rejected ANICO’s argument that Munich Re’s alleged failure to provide timely notice precluded recovery, finding that timely notice was not required under the parties’ agreements and, further, that ANICO could show no prejudice. The court granted Munich Re summary judgment with respect to its interpretation of the agreements’ retention provisions. As none of these decisions entirely disposed of the case, it remains pending in federal district court. Munich Reinsurance America, Inc. v. American National Insurance Co., Case No. 09-6435 (USDC D.N.J. Sept, 28, 2012).

This post written by Ben Seessel.

See our disclaimer.