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

SPECIAL FOCUS: THE METLIFE DECISION AND SIFI DESIGNATIONS FOR REINSURANCE COMPANIES

by

The designation of MetLife as a systemically significant nonbank financial institution (SIFI) by the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) was recently rescinded by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.  The Treasury Department has indicated that the government will appeal the decision.  In a SPECIAL FOCUS article, Roland Goss profiles the court decision and the prospects for a reinsurance company being designated by FSOC as a SIFI.

This post written by Rollie Goss.
See our disclaimer.

NEW YORK FEDERAL COURT ADDRESSES UMPIRE’S “PRE-SELECTION” DISCLOSURE OBLIGATIONS IN REINSURANCE DISPUTE

by

In a dispute arising out of a series of contentious reinsurance arbitrations over a seven-year period between National Indemnity Company (“NICO”) and IRB Brasil Ressegurous S.A., the court confirmed three awards issued by an arbitration panel in NICO’s favor. IRB had sought coverage for a significant property and business interruption loss under a retrocessional reinsurance contract entered into with NICO. A dispute arose concerning NICO’s indemnification obligations for the loss, which was submitted to arbitration before a three-person panel. Other issues between the parties, including whether NICO was entitled to keep certain premium paid under another retrocessional agreement between the parties, and its request for attorneys’ fees and costs, were also submitted to the panel. Ultimately, the panel issued three awards in NICO’s favor.

Each party sought confirmation and vacatur of the awards through various lawsuits filed in federal court, which were consolidated. One of the primary bases upon which IRB sought vacatur was that the umpire failed to disclose his appointment as party-arbitrator for an entity that was an alleged affiliate of NICO in a separate dispute during the period of time between his nomination as umpire (after his umpire questionnaire was completed) and his eventual appointment some two-years later. For this reason, IRB asserted that the umpire demonstrated evident partiality towards NICO, requiring vacatur of the awards under the Federal Arbitration Act. The court disagreed with IRB, finding that the umpire had no obligation to disclose the appointment during the period after he completed the umpire questionnaire, while he was up for consideration, and that the umpire’s voluntary disclosure post-selection (and decision not to withdraw) was sufficient. Further, the court noted that there was no case law supporting the notion that an arbitrator’s disclosure after being selected as umpire, instead of during the period in which his nomination was pending, constituted sufficient grounds to vacate an arbitration award. Notably, the decision cited to the ARIAS-US Code of Conduct in analyzing the umpire’s conduct, finding that he acted in accordance with the Code in addressing the situation. National Indemnity Co. v. IRB Brasil Ressegurous S.A., No. 15-cv-3975 (USDC S.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2016).

This post written by Rob DiUbaldo.

See our disclaimer.

UK COURT ADDRESSES ARBITRATOR’S PURPORTED CONFLICT OF INTEREST

by

A dispute arose over a project in Iraq between a British Virgin Island claimant and a Malaysian defendant with a sole Canadian QC arbitrator. The claimant’s challenge of the arbitrator’s award was based upon bias because of the arbitrator’s purported conflict of interest. The basis of the conflict was that members of the arbitrator’s firm regularly represented the claimant’s affiliate, deriving substantial financial income from the representation. The arbitrator neither advised nor received income from the firm’s representation of the affiliate. Further, for the past dozen years or so, the arbitrator served almost solely as an international arbitrator, did not participate in partnership matters, nor really represented clients and is treated by the firm as a sole practitioner. In accepting the appointment, the arbitrator never disclosed that his firm represented the affiliate because the firm’s conflict system never disclosed the representation and he was not aware of it.

In finding that there was no possibility of bias, the court considered these facts: (i) the arbitrator was a partner in a law firm; (ii) the law firm earns a substantial amount of money from another entity that has the same corporate parent as the party in the arbitration; (iii) the party in the arbitration was not advised by the firm or the arbitrator; (iv) the arbitrator operated as a sole practitioner only using the firm for secretarial and administrative support; and (v) the arbitrator made all disclosures of which he was advised, although the firm’s conflict system had not advised him of its representation of the affiliate. The court then examined the 2014 International Bar Association Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitrations, pointing out that these were only guidelines and not the force of law. While the Guidelines contain a section entitled “Non-Waivable Red List” which encompassed this situation, the court took issue with them since he believed that this situation was clearly one that should be waivable. Finding that the challenge must fail, the award was confirmed. In the High Court of Justice Queen’s Bench Division Commercial Court, W Limited v. M SDN BHD, Neutral Citation Number [2016] EWHC 422 (Comm).

This post written by Barry Weissman.

See our disclaimer.

FEDERAL COURT WEIGHS PERSONAL JURISDICTION IN RETROCESSION DISPUTE

by

A New Jersey federal district court recently weighed whether it had personal jurisdiction over a foreign corporation in a reinsurance and retrocession dispute. The case involved insurance coverage for Companhia Siderurgica Nacional, S.A. (“CSN”), one of the largest conglomerates in Brazil with interests in steel, iron ore, mining, and various other operations. The direct coverage was provided by Brazilian insurance corporations, which reinsured through IRB Brasil Resseguros S.A. (“IRB”); in turn, IRB sought retrocessional coverage from National Indemnity Company (“NICO”) through a reinsurance broker in New Jersey, Catalyst Re Consulting, LLC (“Catalyst Re”).

The dispute involved nearly $200 million in retrocessional coverage provided to IRB by NICO. When IRB indicated that it may not be able to make a $9 million premium payment on time, NICO issued an extension on the premium payment based on a personal guarantee by CSN. Then, CSN filed a claim for coverage under the direct policies and initiated a lawsuit against IRB for failure to acknowledge that it was the reinsurer of that direct coverage. CSN and IRB settled this dispute, with IRB agreeing to “help CSN retrieve the $9 million premium that CSN paid to NICO” to secure the retrocessional agreement.

As a result, NICO filed suit in New Jersey seeking a declaration that the retrocessional agreement was binding and enforceable, and that CSN had no right to the premium. NICO further alleged tortious interference with a contractual relationship, unjust enrichment, injurious falsehood, and civil conspiracy against CSN. CSN, a Brazilian corporation, moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court explained that “specific jurisdiction analysis is claim-specific,” and it must therefore “consider whether the defendant’s contacts with the forum arise under or relate to each claim alleged.” The court found that it had jurisdiction over CSN on the declaratory actions because it had acted through a New Jersey reinsurance broker to secure coverage and guarantee payment to NICO. However, the court found that it did not have jurisdiction over CSN related to the actions for damages because those involved actions between two Brazilian corporations and lawsuits and settlement agreements effectuated in Brazil. Thus, NICO will only be able to pursue the declaratory action against CSN in the United States, and will likely have to file any suit for damages against CSN in Brazil. National Indem. Co. v. Companhia Siderurgica Nacional, S.A., Case No. 15-cv-00752-JLL (D.N.J. Feb. 8, 2016).

This post written by Zach Ludens.

See our disclaimer.

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT UPHOLDS REFUSAL TO COMPEL ARBITRATION DUE TO UNAVAILABLE FORUM

by

A borrower had previously entered into a pay day loan agreement in August of 2012, which contained an arbitration provision mandating that all claims be arbitrated in the National Arbitration Forum (NAF), and under the Code of Procedure of the NAF. However, as of 2009, NAF did not accept consumer arbitrations. Under Section 5 of the Federal Arbitration Act, where a forum chosen is unavailable, the court may substitute another arbitrator. An agreement to arbitrate is only enforceable if the choice of forum provision was not integral to the agreement as a whole. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the trial court’s ruling that the arbitration agreement’s choice of forum of the NAF was not an “ancillary logistical concern,” but was central to the arbitration agreement. Accordingly, the lender could not enforce the arbitration agreement, and the borrower’s lawsuit was permitted to proceed in court. Flagg v. First Premier Bank, Case No. 14-14052 (11th Cir. Feb. 23, 2016).

This post written by Joshua S. Wirth.

See our disclaimer.