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

THE FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT DOES NOT GRANT ARBITRATORS THE POWER TO COMPEL PRE-HEARING PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM NON-PARTIES

by

While the FAA grants arbitrators authority to compel non-parties to appear before them and produce documents at a hearing, it does not authorize them to compel pre-hearing production. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals joined the Second, Third and Fourth Circuits in so holding. The Eighth Circuit, however, disagrees, having ruled previously that “implicit in an arbitration panel’s power to subpoena relevant documents for production at a hearing is the power to order the production of relevant documents for review by a party prior to the hearing.” It is also worth noting, as the Ninth Circuit did, that “because arbitration is a creation of contract, arbitration agreements may provide arbitrators greater discovery powers with respect to the parties bound by such agreements.” CVS Health Corp. v. Vividus, LLC, Case No. 16-16187 (9th Cir. Dec. 21, 2017).

This post written by Benjamin E. Stearns.

See our disclaimer.

FIFTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMS COURT’S AUTHORITY TO RULE ON QUESTION OF ARBITRABILITY AND FINDS INJUNCTIVE RELIEF WAS NOT SUBJECT TO ARBITRATION

by

A Texas federal court determined that, pursuant to the parties’ contract, the dispute was not arbitrable because the plain language of the arbitration clause expressly excluded suits that involved requests for injunctive relief, despite the incorporation of the AAA Rules. The clause stated as follows:

This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of North Carolina. Any dispute arising under or related to this Agreement (except for actions seeking injunctive relief and disputes related to trademarks, trade secrets, or other intellectual property of Pelton & Crane), shall be resolved by binding arbitration in accordance with the arbitration rules of the American Arbitration Association.

Defendants argued that, “under the plain language of the clause, disputes about arbitrability do not fall within the carve-out and thus, belong to the arbitrator.” Plaintiff, on the other hand, argued that “the structure of the specific carve-out at issue here leads to the natural reading that the AAA Rules only apply to the category of cases that are subject to binding arbitration under the Dealer Agreement – namely, those outside of the contract’s express carve-out.”

The District Court held that the arguments for arbitrability were “wholly without merit” based on the plain language of the arbitration clause itself and thus fell squarely within the “wholly groundless” exception created by Douglas v. Regions Bank, 757 F. 3d 460 (5th Cir. 2014). On appeal, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, stating that, “[t]he mere fact that the arbitration clause allows [Plaintiff] to avoid arbitration by adding a claim for injunctive relief does not change the clause’s plain meaning.”

Archer and White Sales, Inc. v. Henry Schein, Inc., et al., No. 16-41674 (5th Cir. Dec. 21, 2017).

This post written by Nora A. Valenza-Frost.
See our disclaimer.

NEW YORK’S HIGH COURT SCALES BACK REINSURANCE LIABILITY CAP

by

In Excess Insurance Co. Ltd. v Factory Mutual Insurance Co., 3 NY3d 577 (N.Y. 2004), New York’s high court held that, under a facultative reinsurance agreement, the reinsurer’s liability was limited to a per occurrence cap, despite the fact that that the underlying policy covered expenses, such as underlying defense costs, in addition to indemnity for losses.

On a certified question from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, that same court addressed the scope of its holding in Excess, finding that its prior decision does not impose a per se cap, but that rather the question of the limits of liability under a facultative reinsurance agreement is governed by the specific terms and provisions of the facultative agreement at issue. The Court noted that its decision in Excess was limited to the facts before it, and did not announce a presumption or rule of construction favoring a cap in all factual circumstances: “Under New York law generally, and in Excess in particular, there is neither a rule of construction nor a presumption that a per occurrence liability limitation in a reinsurance contract caps all obligations of the reinsurer, such as payments made to reimburse the reinsured’s defense costs.”

It distinguished Excess on its facts, noting that in Excess, the loss adjustment expenses were incurred in litigation between the insurer and its policyholder, and they were not costs that the insurer was obligated to pay under the terms of the underlying policy itself. It thus held that, “[w]hether a similar (or even identical) limitation clause would apply to third-party defense costs, in a certificate reinsuring a liability insurance policy, was never at issue” in Excess.

Limiting its ruling to the certified question before it, the Court did not analyze the issue further to determine the ultimate outcome. Rather, the case now reverts back to the Second Circuit, given this guidance.

Global Reinsurance Corporation of America v. Century Indemnity Co., No. 124 (N.Y. Dec. 14, 2017).

This post written by John Pitblado.
See our disclaimer.

CALIFORNIA DOI AMENDS REGULATION OF REINSURANCE

by

The California Department of Insurance (DOI) has adopted a set of amendments, effective January 1, 2018, to its regulations regarding reinsurance accounting, agreements and oversight. These changes were made to conform the regulations with the requirements of the federal Nonadmitted and Reinsurance Reform Act (NRRA), changes to the California Insurance Code, NAIC Model #787, and the practices of the DOI.

The amendments include several changes that clarify which regulations apply only to California domestic insurers versus which apply to both domestic and foreign (i.e., domiciled outside of California) insurers. This is a response to the preemption by the NRRA of certain state laws regarding reinsurance agreements when applied to nondomestic insurers. Among other things, the amendments make it clear that foreign insurers no longer have to file indemnity reinsurance transactions for commissioner approval. The amendments also include changes conforming the regulations to a 2013 change in the California Insurance Code that prevents the Commissioner from denying financial statement credit to a foreign ceding insurer if that credit is recognized by the ceding insurer’s domestic state and that state’s solvency requirement have been accredited by the NAIC or are substantially similar to the NAIC standards.

The largest additions made by the amendments adopt NAIC Model #787, which the NAIC created to establish uniform minimum standards for securing the obligations under captive reinsurance treaties and reserve financing arrangements. Model #787 is expected to become part of the NAIC’s accreditation standards within the next few years, and the adoption of its provisions in these regulations is intended to ensure that California will meet those accreditation standards whenever that occurs.

Additionally, in the section of the regulations providing that a domestic insurer must generally “retain at least 10% of direct premium written per line of business,” the amendments replace the phrase “per line of business” with “per reinsurance agreement,” as the Commissioner has historically exercised his discretion to apply this retention requirement to reinsurance agreements as a whole, which often include multiple lines of business. Further, the amendments remove all references to and requirements for “volume insurers,” a concept that no longer exists under California law.

Cal. Code Regs. tit. 10, §§ 2303 – 2303.29; Cal. Office of Administrative Law, 2017-1012-04 (Nov. 27, 2017); Cal. Dept. of Ins., Initial Statement of Reasons, Reinsurance Oversight, REG-2016-00024 (May 1, 2017)

This post written by Jason Brost.

See our disclaimer.

NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS HOLDS THERE IS NO PRESUMPTION OF EXPENSE-INCLUSIVE CAPS IN LIABILITY LIMIT CLAUSES IN FACULTATIVE REINSURANCE CERTIFICATES

by

The New York Court of Appeals recently answered in the negative a question certified to it by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit regarding prior precedent and whether per occurrence liability limits in facultative reinsurance contracts cap all obligations of the reinsurer, including for expenses such as defense costs. In doing so, the state’s highest court reiterated that general principles of contract construction apply to reinsurance contracts.

Specifically, the Second Circuit asked whether the New York Court of Appeals’ 2004 decision in Excess Ins. Co. v. Factory Mut. Ins. Co.:

“impose[d] either a rule of construction, or a strong presumption, that a per occurrence liability cap in a reinsurance contract limits the total reinsurance available under the contract to the amount of the cap regardless of whether the underlying policy is understood to cover expenses such as, for instance, defense costs?”

In the underlying Second Circuit case, the cedent (“Century”) billed its reinsurer (“Global”) over $82,000 in loss and over $244,000 in expenses for a particular claim, even though the certificate’s stated limit was $250,000. Citing Excess, Global argued the $250,000 limit operated as a cap on its ultimate reinsurance obligations, while Century argued the cap applied only to loss (indemnity) and that Global was still responsible to cover expenses in addition to the limit.

The court began its analysis with a detailed explanation of its decision in Excess. There, the court interpreted the limitations clause in a facultative reinsurance certificate to operate an expense-inclusive cap. In the decade-plus since the Excess decision, however, some courts have interpreted the ruling to mean that third-party defense costs incurred by a cedent are unambiguously or presumptively subject to the amount of the stated liability limits in such certificates.

Answering the certified question in the negative, the court rejected that Excess established such a per se rule on expense-inclusive caps. It distinguished the issues presented in Excess and in the underlying Second Circuit case, with the former addressing whether the reinsurance contract at issue’s limitations clause established a cap for both liability costs and expenses or merely liability costs. Specifically, the court noted, the Excess case read the limitations clause in context of the entirety of the reinsurance contract in line with general principles of contract construction. Additionally, the court distinguished Excess on the fact that the expenses incurred were in litigation between the insurer and its policyholder, not costs (such as third-party defense costs) the insurer was obligated to pay pursuant to the terms of the underlying contract itself. Thus, the court concluded that Excess did not address whether similar limitations clauses would require reinsurers cover third-party defense costs in excess of those limits.

The court “h[e]ld definitively” that Excess did not supersede the ordinary rules of contract interpretation that otherwise apply to reinsurance contracts. Thus, under the Court of Appeals holding, New York law does not impose a rule nor a presumption that a liability limitation clause automatically caps all obligations, including defense costs and other expenses, owed by a reinsurer without regard for the specific provisions in the reinsurance contract, and the court answered the Second Circuit’s question in the negative. Global Reinsurance Corp. of Am. v. Century Indem. Co., No. 124 (N.Y. Dec. 14, 2017).

This post written by Thaddeus Ewald .

See our disclaimer.