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

COURT PUNTS TO ARBITRATOR ON EFFECT OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL ON CLAIM AGAINST REINSURER

by

A third-party complaint disputing the nature and extent of an obligation to reinsure an insurance company with respect to losses arising from assumed reinsurance risks has been dismissed without prejudice, to allow an arbitrator to decide the scope of a settlement agreement. Through a settlement agreement, the insurance company resolved its dispute with the defendant named in the original complaint. The original complaint was dismissed with prejudice. Thereafter, the insurance company contended that its claims against the third-party defendant reinsurer should be voluntarily dismissed without prejudice to allow arbitration of those parties’ claims. The reinsurer argued the voluntary dismissal should be with prejudice, as the insurance company’s claims in the third-party complaint were derivative of the claims in the original complaint. The court declined to dismiss with prejudice, finding that the question of whether the claims were, in fact, derivative was a question better left for the arbitrator. Eagle Star Insurance Co. v. Highland Insurance Co., Case No. 02-2165 (USDC S.D. Cal. July 22, 2010).

This post written by Brian Perryman.

AON BENFIELD SECURITIES AND SWISS RE ISSUE REPORTS ON THE INSURANCE-LINKED SECURITIES MARKET

by

Aon Benfield Securities has issued its third-annual review of the insurance-linked securities (ILS) market. The review describes the growth that has occurred in the ILS market for the year ending June 30, 2010, including 20 new transactions representing a volume of $4.6 billion. The review also provides a positive outlook for the upcoming year.

Also included in the Aon Benfield review are Aon Benfield’s newly-created indices for its All Bond, BB-rated Bond, U.S. Earthquake Bond, and U.S. Hurricane Bond categories of the ILS market. The indices reflect strong investment returns for 2010, including returns of nearly 13% for both the All Bond and the BB-rated Bond indices, over 15% for the U.S. Hurricane Bond index, and over 7% return for the U.S. Earthquake Bond index. Aon Benfield also provides analyses of the catastrophe bond market and the non-U.S. ILS market, as well as a panel discussion of the ILS market with five active investors.

A report was also issued by Swiss Re that focuses on the ILS market for the first half of 2010. The report provides an overview of new issuance for the first half of the year – which had a volume of $2.5 billion and was comprised of 85% exposure to U.S. Wind risk. Swiss Re’s report also provides analysis of catastrophe bond maturities, trading in the secondary market, and a breakdown of the 3.3% return of its Swiss Re Global Cat Bond Index. Swiss Re’s report also spotlights its recent placement of notes covering U.S. hurricane and earthquake risk for Allianz, and a breakdown of various ILS sector data. Similar to the market review of Aon Benfield Securities, Swiss Re provides a positive outlook for the ILS market.

This post written by Michael Wolgin.

SECOND CIRCUIT REVERSES IN FAVOR OF AIG ON FRAUD CLAIMS, FINDING AXA IGNORED “STORM WARNINGS”

by

The Second Circuit Court reversed a $34.3 million judgment rendered after a jury verdict against AIG on fraudulent inducement claims asserted by AXA arising from reinsurance facilities the parties entered into in or about 1998. While the Court agreed with a district court ruling that AXA’s claims sounded in fraud and not contract, and thus were properly not referable to arbitration, it nonetheless held as a matter of law that AXA failed to prove the claims were timely brought under the two-year discovery prong of the statute of limitations for fraud. The Court found that AXA was on notice of the alleged fraud as early as 1998, when it signed wordings which the Court found clearly indicated the manner in which AIG intended to operate the reinsurance facilities. AXA, despite the “storm warnings” of the wordings, and other indications of AIG’s intentions from 1998 through 2000, failed to bring suit until 2005. Because it found the claims were time-barred, the Court reversed the entry of judgment, and remanded with instructions to enter judgment in favor of AIG. AXA Versicherung AG v. New Hampshire Ins. Co., No. 08-2521 (2d Cir. Aug. 23 2010).

This post written by John Pitblado.

FOLKSAMERICA GIVEN 60 DAYS TO PERFECT SERVICE AGAINST CONSTRUCTORA DEL LITORAL

by

The US District Court for the Southern District of Florida recently issued an opinion on defendant Constructora del Litoral’s Motion to Dismiss for Insufficiency of Service of Process by plaintiff Folksamerica Reinsurance. The action arises out of defendants’ alleged failure to indemnify Folksamerica for sums paid in connection with reinsuring surety bonds issued for a construction project in Ecuador. Plaintiff served process pursuant to the Inter-American Convention on Letters Rogatory and Additional Protocol. Constructora alleged in its Motion to Dismiss that service was improper under both Ecuadorian law and under the Convention. The Court concluded that, although defendants had met the burden in establishing that service of process was insufficient, Folksamerica should be given 60 days to perfect service and file proof with the Court. Further background is available in the motion to dismiss, and the opposition to the motion to dismiss. Folksamerica Reinsurance Co. v. Constructora del Litoral, S.A., Case No. 10-20560 (S.D. Fla. June 18, 2010).

This post written by John Black.

THIRD CIRCUIT HOLDS THAT A PARTY CANNOT “OPT OUT” OF THE FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT IN ITS ENTIRETY

by

The Third Circuit has affirmed a judgment in favor of several foreign reinsurers confirming arbitration awards against the statutory liquidator (the Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner) for two insolvent insurance companies, but reversed a sanctions award against the Commissioner. Following an arbitration award rescinding three of the four reinsurance treaties at issue, the Commissioner filed a motion in state court to confirm in part, and to vacate in part, the award as part of the liquidation proceedings. The reinsurers removed the case to the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act’s removal provision in 9 U.S.C. § 205, and filed a motion to confirm the award. The Commissioner moved to remand the case, arguing that the parties had selected the Pennsylvania Uniform Arbitration Act to govern the arbitration and, thus, that the parties had opted out of the FAA. The district court denied the remand motion and confirmed the award, concluding that the FAA’s vacatur standards applied, not the PUAA’s standards. The district court also sanctioned the Commissioner for filing what the court perceived to be a frivolous remand motion.

On appeal, the Third Circuit initially concluded that removal was proper. That court rejected the Commissioner’s arguments that, first, the parties opted out of the FAA and, second, even if the FAA applies, the arbitration provisions at issue clearly expressed an intent to opt out of the removal provision in § 205. As a matter of law, parties cannot “opt out” of the FAA in its entirety “because it is the FAA itself that authorizes parties to choose different rules in the first place,” and the parties did not agree to waive the right of removal. Not only did the treaties’ arbitration provisions not make any mention of removal, the only provision referring to removal, a service-of-suit provision, stated that nothing in it should be understood to constitute a waiver of the reinsurers’ removal rights.

The Third Circuit next concluded that the FAA supplied the vacatur standards. In the absence of clear intent to the contrary, the FAA’s standards apply to an arbitral award rendered in favor of a foreign party and enforced in the United States. In addition, there was no clear intent to apply the PUAA vacatur standards. Although the treaties stated that “the arbitration shall be in accordance with the rules and procedures established by the [PUAA],” the service-of-suit provision specifically referred to enforcement of the arbitration award in federal courts. The award was thus confirmable under the FAA’s limited vacatur standards.

Finally, the Third Circuit reversed the order granting sanctions for the remand motion, in part because there was no basis in existing law for the district court to conclude that parties could not opt out of § 205 and divest a federal court of jurisdiction. Ario v. The Underwriting Members of Syndicate 53 at Lloyds for the 1998 Year of Account, No. 09-1921 (3d Cir. Aug. 18, 2010).

This post written by Brian Perryman.