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

SECOND CIRCUIT: CONVENING NEW ARBITRATION PANEL UNNECESSARY WHERE VACANCY IS CREATED BY RESIGNATION

by

On August 3, 2009, we reported on a district court vacating its prior order that arbitration must commence anew and reappointing an arbitrator to the panel after the arbitrator’s health improved. Insurance Company of North America and INA Reinsurance (collectively, “INA”) appealed and also successfully moved for a stay pending the appeal in the Second Circuit, as we reported on April 15, 2010.

Now, the Second Circuit has issued its decision affirming the district court’s grant of Public Service Mutual Insurance Company’s motion for relief from the judgment based on newly discovered evidence that an arbitrator who had resigned was, in fact, able to rejoin the arbitration panel prior to the district court’s decision on whether to convene a new panel or order a replacement arbitrator. According to the Second Circuit, the general rule that a new panel should be convened if a vacancy arises on an arbitral panel due to the death of an arbitrator prior to the rendering of an award does not apply to a vacancy created by a resignation. The Second Circuit further found that the district court’s decision either to reappoint the arbitrator who had resigned, or, in the alternative, to direct INA to appoint a replacement was proper. Among other things, that decision avoided the waste entailed in convening a new panel after the remaining arbitrators had already engaged in significant proceedings in the case. Insurance Co. of North America v. Public Service Mutual Insurance Co., No. 09-3640 (2d Cir. June 23, 2010).

This post written by Brian Perryman.

“PER CLAIM” HELD AMBIGUOUS IN COMMERCIAL LIABILITY POLICY

by

A California appellate court reversed a grant of summary judgment for defendant on a claim for equitable contribution for sums expended in defending a construction defect action. Defendant North American contended that its duty to defend never arose because the underlying insured never paid the $25,000 “per claim” self-insured retention for each of the eight covered homes at issue. The plaintiff, Clarendon America, countered that “per claim” required only one $25,000 payment for the entire action. In an unpublished opinion, the appellate court held that the phrase “per claim” was ambiguous, and that North American failed to show that the developer did not have an “objectively reasonable expectation” that the $25,000 payment would apply only once to the construction defect action as a whole, rather than to each of the eight covered homes. Clarendon Am. Ins. Co. v. North Am. Capacity Ins. Co., No. CIVRS701868 (Cal. App. Ct. June 15, 2010).

This post written by Michael Wolgin.

COURT DECLINES TO RECONSIDER RULING FOR REINSURER IN LIABILITY LIMIT DISPUTE

by

Pacific Employers Insurance Company moved for reconsideration of a recent court ruling that Global Reinsurance Corporation of America was not required to reimburse Pacific for costs beyond the $1 million cap on “reinsurance accepted” under a facultative certificate issued to Pacific by Global (see our May 5, 2010 post for details about the initial ruling). The court denied Pacific’s motion for reconsideration, noting that it failed to point to new evidence or a change in controlling law. The court also denied Pacific’s alternative motions seeking to have the previous order certified as final for immediate appeal, or to have the matter certified for an interlocutory appeal to the Third Circuit. The court held that claims for relief remain to be adjudicated, and that any appeal is premature and unwarranted. Pacific Employers Ins. Co. v. Global Reinsurance Corp. of America, Case No. 09-6055 (USDC E.D. Pa. June 9, 2010).

This post written by John Pitblado.

ARBITRATOR TO DECIDE WHETHER ARBITRATION AGREEMENT’S BAN OF CLASS ACTIONS IS UNCONSCIONABLE

by

In a dispute centered on retroactive credit card interest-rate increases, Mr. and Mrs. Puleo, on behalf of those similarly situated, appealed the District Court’s decision that the enforceability of an Arbitration Agreement’s ban on class actions was a question of arbitrability for the court to decide. The Puleos argued that the District Court should never have addressed the unconscionability of the class action waiver and instead should have left the issue to be decided by the arbitrator. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals, following the Supreme Court’s decision in Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 537 US 79, 84 (2002), concluded that the challenge to the class action waiver in the concededly valid arbitration agreement did not raise an issue of arbitrability, and thus should have been decided by the arbitrator. The Court reasoned that the parties’ agreement provided that all disputes should be arbitrated, and that this agreement included the claim that the agreement’s waiver of class arbitration was unconscionable. The Court noted that its decision was consistent with the Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds, because it gave effect to the terms of the parties’ arbitration agreement. Puleo v. Chase Bank USA, N.A., Case No. 08-3837 (3d Cir. May 10, 2010).

This post written by John Black.

TRIAL COURT’S PREMATURE DISCHARGE OF BOND RELATING TO REINSURANCE AGREEMENT EXCUSES SURETY FROM PAYING ON BOND DEMAND

by

Petitioner, Founders Insurance Company, sought a preliminary injunction to enjoin the respondents from drawing down on a $32,000,000 trust account created for their benefit under the parties’ reinsurance agreement pending the outcome of the arbitration of a dispute. The preliminary injunction was granted, and Founders posted a bond in the amount of $1.6 million as a condition for the injunction, which was fully secured by cash. Great American Insurance Company was the surety on the bond. The injunction was subsequently reversed on appeal. On remand, the trial court indicated on the record that it “vacated” the bond and, at the same time, also awarded respondents damages in the amount of $389,282.74 for lost income as a result of the improper injunction.

Relying on the trial court’s statement that the undertaking was vacated, Founders contacted Great American and requested the return of the cash collateral, and Great American released the collateral. Subsequently, respondents contacted Great American and demanded disbursement from the bond of the amount of lost income damages fixed by the trial court. Upon learning that the bond had been cancelled, respondents moved for an order resettling and clarifying the court’s earlier order. The court granted the motion to the extent of directing Founders to post another bond in the amount of $500,000. Respondents appealed the decision of the trial court ordering Founders to post the second bond rather than directing Great American to make immediate payment of the lost income, contending that the order “failed to adequately remedy the consequences of its ill considered statement that it was vacating the undertaking [the first bond].” The appellate court found that Great American had fulfilled its obligation as surety, since it had released the collateral relying in good faith upon the trial court’s “vacated” statement. Great American, therefore, could not be held liable on the first bond for respondents’ damages. Founders Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Everest National Insurance Co., Index No. 600523/07 (N.Y. App. Div. May 4, 2010).

This post written by Brian Perryman.