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 HOLDS DISPUTE OVER SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES UNDER REINSURANCE ADMINISTRATION AGREEMENT ARBITRABLE

by

Trustmark Insurance and American General Assurance entered into a Reinsurance Administration Agreement with Transamerica Occidental Life Insurance, pursuant to which Transamerica provided administration services. Trustmark cancelled the Agreement, and a dispute arose as to Transamerica’s performance of the Agreement and whether it was entitled to further payments for services that it had provided pursuant to the Agreement. Trustmark and Transamerica reached a “settlement” of the dispute, which later fell apart. There was no written settlement agreement, and although the Agreement contained an arbitration provision, no party sought arbitration of the dispute under the Agreement.

Trustmark sued Transamerica, seeking to compel performance of the settlement agreement. Transamerica moved to compel arbitration. The District Court held that even though there was no written settlement agreement, the arbitration provision of the Reinsurance Administration Agreement covered any dispute “relating to” the parties’ performance of the Agreement, including Transamerica’s claim for further payments under the Agreement. The court therefore compelled arbitration of the substance of the dispute that was covered by the “settlement agreement.” Trustmark Insurance Co. v. Transamerica Occidental Life Insurance Co., Case No. 06-5561 (N.D.Ill. May 1, 2007).

COURT RULES ABSENT SHOWING OF PREJUDICE, REINSURERS REMAIN LIABLE TO INDEMNIFY INSUREDS DESPITE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM

by

In 2002, the Kansas City Southern Railroad (“KCSR”) paid $37.5 million dollars to settle claims arising out of a fatal automobile accident. This case sub judice involved a dispute between KCSR’s captive insurer, TransFin Insurance Limited (“TransFin”), and TransFin’s reinsurers, Columbia Casualty and American Re-Insurance Company (together “the Reinsurers”), relating to coverage for this claim.

The Reinsurers claimed that they were not liable to indemnify TransFin on this claim because the underlying insured, KCSR, failed to meet the necessary conditions precedent required under their policy. The court disagreed, concluding that while KCSR failed to submit a claim in writing within the required policy period, they could take advantage of the relation-back procedure for claims made after the expiration of policies.

Having concluded that TransFin properly provided coverage on KCSR’s claim, the court addressed whether TransFin’s notice to its Reinsurers was late or otherwise inadequate and, if late, whether the Reinsurers must prove prejudice before they can successfully invoke the defense of late notice by the reinsured. The court stated that it did not need to decide whether notice was timely because even assuming it was, without demonstrating they suffered prejudice as a matter of law, the Reinsurers could not avoid coverage for late notice. Columbia Casualty v. TransFin Ins. Ltd., Case No. 2:05-CV-199 (USDC D. Vt. Apr. 27, 2007).

SECOND CIRCUIT AFFIRMS ARBITRATION AWARD FINDING NO VIOLATION OF ‘WELL-DEFINED AND DOMINANT’ PUBLIC POLICY

by

The Second Circuit recently addressed the standard by which a court may refuse to enforce an arbitration award on the ground that the award is contrary to public policy. In a case arising out of an employment dispute, Hope Day Nursery appealed a district court decision granting the plaintiffs’ motion to confirm two arbitration awards that (1) reinstated a discharged employee with back pay; and (2) instructed Hope Day nursery to “cease and desist from hiring and/or assigning substitute teachers to work extra hours” before first offering those hours to qualified existing employees.

The Second Circuit agreed with the district court’s finding that Hope Day Nursery’s challenge to the first arbitration award was untimely. With respect to the challenge to the second arbitration award, the court explained that “[w]hile a court may ‘refus[e] to enforce an arbitrator’s award under a collective-bargaining agreement because it is contrary to public policy,’ such a refusal ‘is limited to situations where the contract as interpreted would violate some explicit public policy that is well defined and dominant…and not from general considerations of supposed public interests.’” Since Hope Day Nursery did not point to a well defined and dominant public policy that would be violated by enforcement of the collective bargaining agreement, the Second Circuit affirmed the arbitration award. District Council 1707 v. Hope Day Nursery, Case No. 06-0325-cv (2d Cir. May 4, 2007).

Court affirms summary judgment on reinsurance claims issue based upon res judicata

by

Two UK-based insurance companies, collectively known as Eagle Star, served as lead underwriter for a quota share reinsurance program reinsuring Legion Indemnity and Legion Insurance. A dispute arose over monies owed under the quota share reinsurance agreements. Legion Insurance was placed in rehabilitation in Pennsylvania, and an Illinois court placed Legion Indemnity under the control of the Illinois Commissioner of Insurance. Eagle Star filed an action against Legion in federal court. The Illinois court granted Eagle Star summary judgment, finding that the Pennsylvania court had determined the issue in Eagle Star's favor as to Legion Insurance, and that Legion Indemnity was bound by the decision based upon its privity with Legion Insurance and the doctrine of res judicata. The Court of Appeals affirmed. In re Liquidation of Legion Indemnity Company, Case No. 02-6695 (Ill. Ct.App. Mar. 29, 2007).

COURTS, NOT ARBITRATORS, TO DETERMINE EXISTENCE OF CONTRACT “AS A WHOLE”

by

MemberWorks, Inc.’s (“MemberWorks”) enrolled Sanford in a discount shopping program without her consent, charging her a fee for the program. The membership agreement contained an arbitration provision. Sanford sued MemberWorks, challenging the validity of the contract and seeking damages. The District Court compelled arbitration, holding that Sanford's challenge to the contract should be decided by an arbitrator. The arbitrator intially opined that he did not have jurisdiction to consider the validity of the contract; rather, that the validity of the contract was an issue for the court. The arbitrator then found the contract to be invalid, awarding Sanford $72 in damages, plus interest and arbitration fees, but denying Sanford's other claims. The District Court confirmed the award.

The Ninth Circuit found that Sanford had not waived her right to challenge the order compelling arbitration by waiting to challenge that decision after the arbitration award had been entered, and that the District Court should have ruled on the validity of the contract prior to compelling arbitration. The Court vacated the arbitration award and remanded the case for a determination by the District Court of whether a contract had been formed between Sanford and MemberWorks. Sanford v. MemberWorks, Inc., Case No 05-55175 (9th Cir. April 16, 2007).