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

COUNSEL DISQUALIFIED FOR OBTAINING AND CONCEALING POSSESSION OF INTERNAL ARBITRATION PANEL COMMUNICATIONS

by

On May 25, 2011, we reported on the denial of Northwestern National Insurance Co.’s petition to appoint a replacement arbitrator after opponent INSCO’s appointed arbitrator resigned in protest to perceived partiality by Northwestern’s appointee. The court has now disqualified INSCO’s counsel for improperly procuring from its former appointee, and then hiding, internal emails between members of the panel containing deliberations in the ongoing arbitration. INSCO’s counsel had requested the documents to substantiate its allegations that Northwestern’s appointed arbitrator was biased. The court found that it, rather than the panel, was the proper entity to determine attorney discipline and that INSCO’s counsel’s actions constituted “a serious violation of arbitral guidelines, as well as ethical rules.” Northwestern National Insurance Co. v. INSCO, Ltd., Case No. 1:11-cv-01124 (USDC S.D.N.Y. Oct. 3, 2011).

This post written by Michael Wolgin.

DISTRICT COURT REFUSES TO DISQUALIFY ARBITRATORS IN REINSURANCE DISPUTE

by

IRB-Brasil and National Indemnity Company recently filed cross petitions concerning the ongoing arbitration between the parties. The arbitration arises out of a dispute over reinsurance policies issued by NICO to IRB. IRB sought to stay the arbitration, to disqualify NICO’s appointed arbitrator, and to appoint one in his place. It sought further to consolidate the two arbitration proceedings pending between the parties. In the alternative, IRB sought to form an arbitration panel to determine whether the arbitrations should be consolidated. NICO, for its part, sought to designate a neutral third-party arbitrator in one of the pending arbitrations. The court denied all petitions, concluding that under the Federal Arbitration Act it was not authorized to disqualify an arbitrator chosen in accordance with the parties agreement to arbitrate. The agreement specified only that the arbitrators be “active or retired officers of insurance or reinsurance companies,” a criterion that had been fulfilled. All other decisions before the Court stemmed from this conclusion and the petitions were accordingly denied. IRB-Brasil Resseguros v. National Indem. Co., No. 11-1965 (USDC S.D.N.Y. Oct. 6, 2011).

This post written by John Black.

INSURER UNSUCCESSFULLY ATTEMPTS TO AVOID ARBITRATION BY WINNING RACE TO THE COURTHOUSE

by

Republic Mortgage Insurance issued policies to lender Countrywide insuring against default by Countrywide’s borrowers. Each policy contained an arbitration clause providing that Countrywide “may elect to settle by arbitration a controversy, dispute, or other assertion of liability or rights which it initiates arising out of or relating to this policy.” A dispute arose after Republic denied claims, contending that coverage had been rescinded due to misrepresentations allegedly made by Countrywide in applying for the policies and by its borrowers in applying for loans. Republic filed suit in state court seeking a declaration that its rescissions were consistent with policy terms; Countrywide moved to compel arbitration. Republic opposed the motion, arguing that Republic had “initiated” the dispute, and that the arbitration provision only requires disputes that Countrywide “initiates” to be arbitrated. The trial court rejected this argument and granted Countrywide’s motion to compel. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Republic’s proposed interpretation would frustrate the purpose of the agreement. The court also noted how Republic’s interpretation is commercially unreasonable because it would promote procedural gamesmanship, i.e., attempting to avoid arbitration by filing a declaratory judgment action before Countrywide filed a demand for arbitration. Republic Mortgage Ins. Co. v. Countrywide Fin. Corp., No. 06292 (N.Y. App. Div. August 18, 2011).

This post written by Ben Seessel.

COURT DENIES PRE-PLEADING SECURITY AND DISMISSES SURETY CASE BASED ON STAY IN REHABILITATION PROCEEDING

by

General Security National Insurance Company brought an action in New York federal court against Aequicap Insurance Company, in connection with Aequicap’s alleged failure to perform under a surety bond it issued to General Security.  After Aequicap filed an answer in the case, General Security filed a motion seeking to compel Aequicap to post security pursuant to New York’s pre-pleading security statute.  Aequicap objected on various bases, including the fact that, after the filing of General Security’s motion, a stay had been entered in Aequicap’s Florida rehabilitation proceeding.  The New York court denied General Security’s motion, citing the Florida court’s stay Order, and dismissed the case without prejudice to re-filing, pending the outcome of the Florida proceeding.   General Security Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Aequicap Ins. Co., No. 10-9685 (USDC S.D.N.Y. April 29, 2011).

This post written by John Pitblado.

COURT CONSIDERS PRIVILEGE ASSERTIONS IN DISPUTE INVOLVING ASBESTOS TRUST, EXCESS LIABILITY INSURER, AND REINSURANCE

by

In a suit between a bankruptcy trust established to resolve a defunct corporation’s asbestos-related personal injury liabilities and the corporation’s excess liability insurer that had denied coverage to the trust in connection with the asbestos claims, a court resolved various attorney client privilege and work product protection issues. The insurer had sought various documents related to the handling of the underlying asbestos claims by the trust, among others. Many of these documents included communications between counsel and the corporation or between counsel and the bankruptcy creditors’ committee. No privilege existed over documents addressing the handling of the underlying asbestos claims because (1) a common interest exists between the trust and the insurer related to the asbestos claims, and (2) the trust had a duty to cooperate with the insurer based on the primary policy. In contrast, the court held the privilege did exist for a number of documents related to the reinsurance procured by the insurer. Whereas the insurer’s discovery requests were related to the handling of the asbestos claims, the trust’s requests were for the purpose of learning the insurer’s “admissions regarding the matter in dispute.” The court also found a common interest existed between the insurer and its reinsurer regarding the trust’s claims, such that any communications with counsel that may have been shared by the insurer with its reinsurer would not be considered a waiver of privilege. ARTRA 524(g) Asbestos Trust v. Transport Insurance Co., Case No. 09-458 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 28, 2011).

This post written by Michael Wolgin.