Week's Best Posts

LLOYDS’ DISQUALIFICATION ACTION AGAINST OPPOSING COUNSEL DISMISSED

May 29, 2012 by Carlton Fields

Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London (“Underwriters”) brought an action in Massachusetts Superior Court against Liberty Mutual and its counsel, Sidley Austin LLP, seeking to disqualify Sidley from representing Liberty Mutual in a coverage action involving a Lloyds reinsurance treaty, where Liberty Mutual was adverse to Lloyds. Sidley had also been retained by Resolute Management, Inc.. (f/k/a Equitas), which is Lloyds’ long-tail asbestos reinsurance claims management arm, to represent it in connection with a federal appeal. Sidley claimed that there was no conflict in its representation in the two actions, but that if there was a conflict, it was nevertheless disclosed to Lloyds, and implicitly waived thereby. The Court agreed with Sidley, finding the two representations did not involve substantially similar issues, and that Lloyds had been appropriately apprised of Sidley’s representation of Liberty Mutual when it retained Sidley in the federal appeal. The Court denied the motion for disqualification, and dismissed Lloyds’ action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. Apparently, Lloyds was not upset enough about Sidley’s dual role to fire it from representing Equitas in the appeal. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London v. Sidley Austin LLP, No. SUCV2010-04663 (Mass. Super. Ct. March 5, 2012).

This post written by John Pitblado.

See our disclaimer.

CITIZENS PROPERTY INVOLVED IN LARGEST CAT BOND EVER

May 28, 2012 by Carlton Fields

Florida’s state-owned property insurer, Citizens Property Insurance Company, is the ceding insurer on the largest reinsurance cat bond ever to be placed, a $750 million hurricane risk bond issued by Bermuda special purpose reinsurer Everglades Re, which provides coverage for two years. This is Citizen’s initial cat bond, and the Citizens Board has authorized the purchase of private reinsurance for the 2012 hurricane season to supplement the risk transfer of the cat bond. This represents a significant expansion of the cat bond market. Reinsurance Focus blogmaster Rollie Goss and Carlton Fields attorney Bob Shapiro served as special reinsurance counsel to Citizens for the Everglades Re cat bond and for Citizens’ private reinsurance placements.

This post written by Rollie Goss.

See our disclaimer.

REINSURER PERMITTED TO REFUSE CONSENT TO NEW BOND OFFERING DESPITE INSURED’S COMPLIANCE WITH “ADDITIONAL DEBT TEST”

May 22, 2012 by Carlton Fields

A hospital sued its bond insurer and reinsurer for losses incurred pre-paying certain debt before learning that the insurers would refuse to consent to the hospital’s plan to procure additional debt to fund a new facility. The hospital contended that the underlying policy implicitly required the insurer and reinsurer to provide consent to additional loans if the hospital complied with the policy’s “additional debt test” standards, with which the hospital allegedly complied. The court disagreed and dismissed the case, holding that the policy provided an unqualified right to the insurers to withhold consent. The consent provisions were unconditional on their face and, moreover, contained in a section of the policy separate from the debt test provisions. The court further held that the hospital’s allegations of improper motives on the part of the insurers should be dismissed, where the insurers purportedly withheld consent to conduct diligence on what was to be a $350 million bond offering deal. Woman’s Hospital Foundation v. National Public Finance Guarantee Corp., Case No. 11-cv-00014 (USDC M.D. La. Mar. 20, 2012).

This post written by Michael Wolgin.

See our disclaimer.

MODIFICATION OF REINSURANCE AGREEMENT BY REINSURER AND AGENT WITHOUT INSURER’S CONSENT UPHELD WHERE IT DID NOT EFFECT INSURER

May 21, 2012 by Carlton Fields

Arch Reinsurance Company entered into a three-party agreement with a homeowners insurer and insurance agent, Underwriters Service Agency, under which Arch agreed to reinsure all of the risk associated with the underlying insurance policies, and Underwriters agreed to accept commissions based on the extent of the losses taken on the policies. During the agreement’s term, an Arch representative, who subsequently resigned, agreed with Underwriters to amend the reinsurance agreement to raise the minimum commission available to Underwriters by “capping” Arch’s reinsurance at a specified amount of loss.

When Arch’s chairman belatedly learned of the amendment, he unsuccessfully attempted to revoke it, and then sued Underwriters, contending that the amendment was void for want of the cedent insurer’s consent. After a jury verdict was entered in Underwriters’s favor, the appellate court affirmed, holding the reinsurance agreement could be amended even without the consent of the cedent insurer. Despite language in the agreement and state law requiring the insurer’s consent, the court held that a modification could stand if it did not materially affect the cedent insurer. Arch’s apparent agreement to “cap” the insurer’s reinsurance coverage notwithstanding, an indemnity provision in Underwriters’s agency agreement could be construed to permit the insurer to continue to seek unlimited reinsurance coverage from Arch, who could then, in turn, seek indemnity from Underwriters for losses above the cap. The insurer’s status quo was preserved, the amendment would not shift any risk back to the insurer, and the modification would stand. Arch Reinsurance Co. v. Underwriters Service Agency, Inc., Case No. 02-10-00365-CV (Tex. Ct. App. Apr. 26, 2012).

This post written by Michael Wolgin.

See our disclaimer.

INSURER DENIED REQUEST TO ENJOIN SPEEDY ARBITRATION PROCEEDING

May 15, 2012 by Carlton Fields

Policyholder Nero filed a putative class action lawsuit against American Family Insurance Company, alleging common law and statutory claims. American Family moved to dismiss, asserting that the claims were subject to mandatory arbitration, among other grounds. Shortly thereafter, on March 1, Nero notified American Family that an arbitration hearing would be commencing on March 5 in a different state and in front of a single arbitrator. American Family sought a temporary restraining order from the court enjoining the arbitration. American Family argued that it did not have sufficient time to prepare and, furthermore, that the location and designation of a single arbitrator was contrary to the terms of the arbitration provision in Nero’s insurance policy. It further argued that it would be irreparably harmed by having to “oppose confirmation of an unjust arbitration award” in a different jurisdiction. The court denied American Family’s request. The court stated that American Family’s contention that the arbitrator would not follow the proper procedure for selecting arbitrators was only speculative, and, furthermore, that FAA section 10(a)(3) permits vacatur where an arbitrator wrongfully refuses to postpone an arbitration hearing. Nero v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., Case No. 11-02717 (USDC D. Colo. Mar. 2, 2012).

This post written by Ben Seessel.

See our disclaimer.