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

LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY UPDATE

by

FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE

On September 9, 2009, the U.S. House of Representatives passed unanimously H.R. 2571, the Nonadmitted and Reinsurance Reform Act (bill text and bill summary), by voice vote. As previously reported in our June 9, 2009 post, this legislation seeks to streamline the regulation of non-admitted insurance and reinsurance.

The principal provisions of the legislation: (1) regulate premium taxes for nonadmitted insurance; (2) provide that the placement of nonadmitted insurance shall be subject to regulation solely by the insured’s home state; (3) limit the ability of a state to establish eligibility requirements for US domiciled nonadmitted insurers that vary from the Non-Admitted Insurance Model Act; (4) require a GAO study of the nonadmitted insurance market; (5) regulate the extent to which a state may not recognize credit for reinsurance for an insurer’s ceded risk; (6) partially pre-empt the extraterritorial application of the law of a state to a ceding insurer not domiciled in that state; and (7) provide that in most circumstances a state that is the domicile of a reinsurer shall be solely responsible for regulating its financial solvency. This bill has been referred to the Committee on Financial Services, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary.

The legislation was received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs on September 10, 2009.

STATE REGULATORY UPDATE

The Oregon Division of Insurance (DOI) adopted temporary rule OAR 836-012-0331 (rule text and rulemaking order) on the treatment of reinsurance reserve credits or assets under agreements prior to November 9, 1995. The temporary rule replaces OAR 836-012-0330, which, according to the DOI, was apparently repealed in error. The repeal of that rule removed the prohibition of an insurer reporting reserve credits or assets established with respect to existing reinsurance agreements entered into prior to the effective date of the Life and Health Reinsurance Agreements Model Regulation (OAR 836-012-0300 to 836-012-0330). According to the DOI, the repeal violated the Reinsurance Ceded accreditation standard, Part A, 10(m).

In order to remain accredited, the DOI was required to adopt the temporary rule. The temporary rule provides that any reserve credits or assets established with respect to reinsurance agreements entered into prior to November 9, 1995 that would not be entitled to recognition under the provisions of OAR 836-012-0300 to 836-012-0330 must be reduced to zero for purposes of the insurer’s annual statement filing. The temporary rule is effective July 9, 2009 through December 24, 2009.

This post written by Karen Benson.

DISTRICT COURT FINDS CONTRACTING PARTIES IN PRIVITY, DISMISSES THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT

by

In the latest development of Guaranteed Trust Life’s (“GTL”) suit for reinsurance benefits from First Student Programs, the Northern District of Illinois granted in full third party defendant American United Life’s (“AUL”) motion to dismiss. After previously granting in part and denying in part AUL’s motion to dismiss, the court invited the parties to readdress the issues of res judicata. In fully granting AUL’s motion in the instant order, the court determined that, even though First Student Programs was not a party to the arbitration between GTL and AUL, it was in privity with GTL. The court concluded that because the two companies’ claims against AUL arose out of the same alleged breach of contract, were based on the same legal and factual arguments, and rested on a contractual relationship between the two companies, Illinois’ privity test was met. Accordingly, First Student Programs’ claim agasint AUL was precluded by the arbitration award against AUL. Guarantee Trust Life Ins. v. First Student Programs, LLC, Case No. 05 C 1261 (N.D. Ill Sept. 9, 2009).

This post written by John Black.

EXISTENCE OF DEEMER CLAUSE UNDOES JUDGMENT AGAINST REINSURER

by

We previously reported (April 7, 2008) on a federal district court’s interpretation of the liability limit of an employers’ liability reinsurance agreement in a summary judgment setting, finding in favor of the position advanced by the reinsured. We subsequently noted (August 6, 2008) the district court’s entry of judgment in the total amount of $1,707,698.62, consisting of $1.5 million in damages and $207,698.62 in pre-judgment interest. It appears, however, that the district court was in error, as the Third Circuit vacated the judgment, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The central issue was whether the warranty provision in the agreement limited the reinsurer’s liability for EL claims. The district court held that the contract was unambiguous and contained no such limitation. The Third Circuit held the problem with this conclusion was that it fails to account for the phrase “or so deemed” in the warranty provision. The existence of this “deemer clause” meant the warranty provision could not be interpreted as the district court saw it, solely as a promise or guarantee. The consequence of the reinsured’s failure to comply with the warranty is that, at least in some circumstances, the reinsured was deemed to have complied, so the deemer clause effectively redefined the EL limits in the underlying policies in a way that limited the reinsurer’s liability. Princeton Insurance Co. v. Converium Reinsurance (North America) Inc., No. 08-2136 (3d Cir. Sept. 14, 2009).

This post written by Brian Perryman.

COURT DISMISSES EQUITABLE CONTRIBUTION CLAIM IN MULTI-PARTY COVERAGE DISPUTE

by

The parties to this insurance dispute sought to determine which insurance company, if any, must provide coverage to Charleston Area Medical Center, Inc. (“CAMC”) in regards to a verdict and resulting settlement. In the Second Amended Complaint, the plaintiff, Executive Risk Indemnity, Inc. (“ERI”), asserted two claims, which were a declaratory judgment action and a claim for equitable contribution against a captive insurance company, Vandalia Insurance Company (“Vandalia”), and an assumption reinsurer, Employers Reinsurance Corporation (“ERC”). CAMC and Vandalia brought cross claims against ERC, and ERC moved to dismiss all claims.

On ERI’s equitable contribution claim, the court found that one part of the policy assumed by ERC was in excess to the policy issued by ERI and that two other parts of the policy assumed by ERC did not insure the same risk as the policy issued by ERI. Thus, the court dismissed ERI’s equitable contribution claim. The court then denied the dismissal of ERI’s, CAMC’s, and Vandalia’s declaratory judgment cause of actions against ERC because a substantial live controversy existed between the parties and the issuance of a declaration of rights or other legal relations was warranted. Executive Risk Indem., Inc. v. Charleston Area Med. Ctr., Inc., Case No. 08-00810 (USDC S.D. W. Va. July 30, 2009).

This post written by Dan Crisp.

THIRD CIRCUIT AFFIRMS APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENTS IN CONSOLIDATED INSURANCE BROKERAGE ANTITRUST LITIGATION

by

In a 94 page opinion, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed the approval of the class settlement of certain consolidated cases of alleged insurance brokerage antitrust litigation arising from the New York Attorney General “bid-rigging” investigation in 2004. The district court approved proposed settlements involving the Zurich-affiliate defendants (see prior post dated March 5, 2007) and the Arthur J. Gallagher & Co.-affiliate defendants (see prior posts dated September 25, 2007 and October 15, 2007), and denied the objections to the proposed settlements. The objectors to the Zurich settlement challenged the attorneys fee award to class counsel as based on improper inclusion of work done on other non-settled aspects of related litigation, failure to properly account for work done on behalf of the public by attorneys general involved in the litigation, class counsel’s performance of its gatekeeper function, and the overall amount of the fees, which totaled approximately $29,000,000. The objectors to the Gallagher settlement challenged the amount of the settlement, the requirements of the proposed claim form, the allocation of settlement funds, and whether the requirements of class certification were met. The Third Circuit Court affirmed the district court’s approval of both settlements and the attorneys fee award in the Zurich settlement, and affirmed the denial of each of the objections. In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation, Nos. 07-1759 et al (3d Cir. Sept. 8, 2009).

This post written by John Pitblado.