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

CROSS MOTIONS TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND APPOINT THIRD ARBITRATOR SPARK DISMISSAL OF TWO APPEALS

by

Various BCBS healthcare plans and BCS Insurance Company became engaged in a coverage dispute pertaining to certain professional liability coverage issued by BCS to member plan administrators. As per applicable contracts containing arbitration provisions, the parties each named arbitrators. According to the contracts’ governing procedure, when those two arbitrators failed to reach agreement, some of the health plans brought an action in Illinois federal court seeking appointment of a neutral third arbitrator. In the course of that proceeding, BCS cross-moved for an order to compel individual arbitration, rather than class arbitration, which it styled as a motion to compel non-consolidated arbitration. The court ruled first on BCS’s cross-motion, finding that decision on that issue should be made by the arbitrator(s), not the court. BCS immediately appealed that decision. The court, finding BCS’s appeal an improper interlocutory appeal, thereafter appointed the neutral third arbitrator as requested by the plans and ordered the parties to continue the arbitration with the panel so constituted. BCS appealed that order as well, arguing that its previous interlocutory appeal deprived the district court of jurisdiction to enter its order. The Seventh Circuit held that the first appeal was an improper attempt to circumvent proper arbitration procedure under the FAA, and dismissed it as interlocutory. It then held that the dismissal of the first appeal mooted the basis for the second appeal, since the trial court had jurisdiction to enter its order appointing an arbitrator. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Inc. v. BCS Ins. Co., Nos. 11-2343 & 11-2757 (7th Cir. Dec. 16, 2011)

This post written by John Pitblado.

See our disclaimer.

ENGLISH COURT HOLDS INSURANCE “TOWER” OF MULTIPLE LAYERS OF EXCESS OF LOSS INSURANCE INCURRED SIMULTANEOUS LIABILITY

by

An English court held that a professional indemnity insurance “tower” of multiple excess of loss policies incurred liability simultaneously, rather than sequentially as each policy’s limits were exhausted. The tower consisted of a primary professional indemnity policy upon which were three layers of excess of loss insurance written by the insured’s captive insurer, Teal Insurance. Above the excess of loss policies was a “top and drop” policy written by Teal and reinsured by W.R. Berkley Insurance providing additional coverage once the excess of loss policies were successively exhausted. All policies provided worldwide coverage except the top and drop policy, which excluded North American claims. When the insured incurred multiple American and non-American claims, Teal argued it was entitled to ignore the order in which claims were incurred, and elected to exhaust the tower’s coverage with only the American claims, so as to pass the non-American claims to the reinsured top and drop policy. Teal contended that each policy in the tower incurred liability only after the lower layer policy accepted and exhausted liability. The court disagreed with Teal, holding that liability for the tower occurred simultaneously based on the top and drop policy’s provision that the policy would “continue in force as Underlying policy” (i.e., the top and drop policy would “become” the first layer policy) once the tower was exhausted. Any other conclusion would mean Teal “could determine when they (Teal) admitted liability further up the layer and could themselves organise the lower levels to pay American claims, leaving reinsurers to face non-American claims where those claims should otherwise have exhausted the tower.” Teal Assurance Co. v. W.R. Berkley Insurance (Europe) Ltd., [2011] EWCA Civ 1570 (Eng. Ct. App. Dec. 15, 2011).

This post written by Michael Wolgin.

See our disclaimer.

DISTRICT COURT GRANTS IN PART CROSS-MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN QUOTA SHARE AND EXCESS OF LOSS REINSURANCE DISPUTE

by

Some resolution was reached in a lawsuit between Munich Re and Tower Insurance. The parties asserted claims against each other under reinsurance and retrocessional agreements wherein they agreed to indemnify each other against all or a portion of the loss sustained under certain standard insurance policies. Both parties moved for partial summary judgment. Munich Re sought a past due payment of over $3 million plus prejudgment interests. Tower sought summary judgment on certain claims pertaining to quota share agreements and a multiple line excess of loss reinsurance agreement. The federal district court granted in part and denied in part Munich’s motion, finding that: (a) Tower had already paid the alleged past due payment; (b) Munich was entitled to submit a certification setting for the appropriate prejudgment interest; and (c) a request for an order directing Tower to cease its practice of withholding disputed net balances due should be denied. Likewise, Tower’s motion also was granted in part and denied in part. Munich’s claim regarding the quota share agreements should be limited in scope; loss adjustment expenses arising out of the agreements should be denied. Finally, the court denied Tower’s claim under the excess of loss agreement. Munich Reinsurance America, Inc. v. Tower Insurance Co. of New York, Case No. 09-2598 (USDC D.N.J. Dec. 23, 2011).

This post written by John Black.

See our disclaimer.

COURT ALLOWS REPLACEMENT OF APPOINTED ARBITRATOR, REFUSES TO DISQUALIFY UMPIRE CANDIDATE FOR ALLEGED IMPARTIALITY

by

In a dispute concerning approximately $250 million in coverage obligations under two reinsurance policies issued by National Indemnity Company (“NICO”), IRB-Brasil Resseguros, S.A. (“IRB”) filed a motion to prohibit NICO from changing its party-appointed arbitrator two-years after appointment, and to stay the second of two pending arbitrations until the arbitrators in the first proceeding decided IRB’s motion to consolidate. The federal district court denied IRB’s request to bar NICO from replacing its appointed arbitrator, reasoning that a party is entitled to an arbitrator of its choice to act as a “de facto advocate for its position” and, furthermore, that, notwithstanding the passage of two-years, no action had been taken in the arbitration because a panel had never been fully constituted. The court granted the motion to stay that later-filed arbitration pending the arbitrators’ decision on the motion to consolidate. The court also denied a motion by NICO to disqualify IRB’s neutral umpire candidate due to alleged impartiality, finding that such challenges cannot be brought under the FAA until after an award is rendered. IRB-Brasil Resseguros, S.A. v. National Indem. Co., Case No. 11-1965 (USDC S.D.N.Y. Nov. 29, 2011).

This post written by Ben Seessel.

See our disclaimer.