Week's Best Posts

APPELLATE COURT RULES ON LOSS ALLOCATION AND NOTICE DISPUTES CONCERNING REINSURANCE CLAIM

March 30, 2015 by Carlton Fields

A New York appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment but with modifications. New Hampshire Insurance Company (“New Hampshire”) together with other insurers, settled with Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation (“Kaiser”) for asbestos personal injury related claims. The settlement allocated 100% of the asbestos liability to New Hampshire and their excess reinsurance carrier, Clearwater Insurance Company (“Clearwater”). New Hampshire sought indemnification from Clearwater pursuant to a reinsurance agreement.

Clearwater challenged the allocation in the settlement arrangement alleging that it forced New Hampshire to bear costs associated with other settled claims including bad faith, which was not covered in the excess policy. Clearwater further alleged that New Hampshire breached its notice and reporting duties under the terms of the reinsurance contract. In the very early stages of discovery, New Hampshire moved for summary judgment, arguing in part that Clearwater was bound by the allocation settlement under reinsurance principles. The trial court denied summary judgment and the appellate court affirmed, finding an allocation decision was not immune from scrutiny. Therefore, New Hampshire’s settlement would be judged on its reasonableness, which at this stage of the litigation was “undeveloped.”

Furthermore, the court found another triable issue as to New Hampshire’s notice to Clearwater on loses sustained by Kaiser. Clearwater alleged that it had been prejudiced by New Hampshire’s late notice resulting in “disadvantageous communication agreements” with its reinsurers. Based on these facts, the appellate court found New Hampshire’s summary judgment motion premature.

New Hampshire Ins. Co. v. Clearwater Ins. Co., No. 12779 (N.Y. App. Div. Mar. 24, 2015).

This post written by Matthew Burrows, a law clerk at Carlton Fields in Washington, DC.

See our disclaimer.

SOUTH DAKOTA REVISES STATUTES REGARDING REGULATION OF CAPTIVE INSURANCE COMPANIES

March 24, 2015 by Carlton Fields

House Bill 1180 (2015), signed into law February 27, 2015, amends Chapter 56-46 of the South Dakota Insurance Code, Captive Law, to allow the formation and regulation of agency captive insurance companies in South Dakota. As defined in House Bill 1180, an agency captive insurance company is either: i) an insurance company that is owned, controlled or under common ownership or control by an insurance agency, brokerage, or reinsurance intermediary that only insures the risks of insurance or annuity contracts placed by or through the agency, brokerage or reinsurance intermediary; or ii) owned or controlled by a producer of service contracts or warranties that only reinsures the contractual liability arising out of service contracts or warranties sold through such producer. An agency captive insurance company may be formed as in the same manner as a pure captive insurance company. An agency captive insurance company must comply with the following financial reporting requirements:

Submit annually no later than six months after the close of its financial year to the director a report of its financial condition using statutory accounting principles certified under oath by two of its officers. An agency captive insurance company may make written application for permission to file the annual report on a fiscal year end date that is consistent with its parent company’s fiscal year;
Provide a report of its financial condition audited by an independent certified public accountant every five years pursuant to Chapter 58-43 if it has annual direct premiums written of less than $2.5M dollars;
If an agency captive insurance company has $2.5M dollars or more of annual direct premiums written, it shall provide a report of its financial condition audited by an independent certified public accountant every three years pursuant to Chapter 58-43; and,
File an actuarial opinion following the year of operation and in connection with its audited statement of financial condition.

Regarding financial and business operations, an agency captive insurance company is not subject to any restrictions on allowable investments and may make a loan to its parent or affiliated entities. However, any investment that threatens the agency captive insurance company’s solvency or liquidity may be limited or prohibited by the Director of the Division of Insurance. Furthermore, loans to parents or affiliated entities of an agency captive insurance company is subject to prior approval by the Director of the Division of Insurance. Finally, an agency captive insurance company may enter into any arrangement to provide risk management services to a controlled unaffiliated business or an unaffiliated business; however, it may not accept any insurance risk from an unaffiliated business.

This post written by Kelly A. Cruz-Brown.

See our disclaimer.

REINSURANCE EXCLUSION BARS COVERAGE FOR BAD FAITH LAWSUIT

March 23, 2015 by Carlton Fields

A federal judge in North Carolina recently examined a reinsurance policy provision excluding loss “resulting from any claim for . . . any actual or alleged lack of good faith or unfair dealing in the handling of any claim or obligation under any insurance contract.” The case involved a request for coverage under a reinsurance policy for a lawsuit filed by a doctor against his medical malpractice carrier, the reinsured. The doctor, against whom an excess verdict had been entered, asserted a number of causes of action including bad faith refusal to settle within the policy limit. The reinsurer filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that there was no coverage for the doctor’s lawsuit based on the exclusion mentioned above because all potential loss resulted from the reinsured’s alleged lack of good faith in refusing to settle the underlying matter within the underlying policy limit. Applying North Carolina law, the court agreed with the reinsurer, concluding that all the causes of action alleged a single course of conduct involving a lack of good faith in refusing to settle within the limit. Because all potential loss “resulted from” and was “inextricably intertwined” with the bad faith allegations, the reinsurer had no duty to defend or indemnify.

Greenwich Ins. Co. v. Medical Mutual Ins. Co. of North Carolina, No. 5:14-cv-295 (USDC E.D.N.C. Jan. 27, 2015).

This post written by Catherine Acree.

See our disclaimer.

COURT ALLOWS PUTATIVE CLASS ACTION TO PROCEED WITH DISCOVERY REGARDING EQUITABLE TOLLING OF RESPA VIOLATIONS

March 17, 2015 by Carlton Fields

M&T Bank Corporation, M&T Bank, and M&T Mortgage Reinsurance Company unsuccessfully sought to stay all discovery in a suit brought against it in a putative class action involving allegations that M&T violated the federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. The named plaintiffs were individual borrowers who entered into loan transactions with M&T and paid private mortgage insurance through M&T. M&T placed the private mortgage insurance with certain insurers who then reinsured the policies with M&T’s captive reinsurer. This scheme was allegedly an illegal sham because it did not create a bona fide reinsurance relationship. Moving to dismiss, M&T argued the entire case was barred under RESPA’s one-year limitations period. Plaintiffs countered that, under the doctrine of equitable tolling, M&T’s fraudulent conduct prevented them from discovering the RESPA violation within the one-year period.

The court allowed the plaintiffs to conduct limited discovery related to the equitable tolling argument. This ruling was in part informed by the ruling from a different judge in a companion case, Riddle v. Bank of America. The Riddle court subsequently entered an order in favor of the defendants which the plaintiffs in that case appealed. M&T thus moved for stay of all discovery pending the outcome of the appeal of the Riddle case. The motion was denied. Although some overlap existed, the court found that the Riddle court had too narrowly limited the issue as to whether plaintiffs in that case engaged in due diligence following execution of their mortgages. Cunningham v. M&T Bank Corp., Case No. 1:12-cv-1238 (USDC M.D. Pa. Jan. 14, 2015).

This post written by Leonor Lagomasino.

See our disclaimer.

COURT AFFIRMS REINSURANCE ARBITRATION AWARD BUT DIRECTS FURTHER BRIEFING ON THE ISSUE OF SEALING DOCUMENTS

March 16, 2015 by Carlton Fields

A federal district court in New York confirmed an arbitration panel’s final award, but directed the parties to brief the issue of whether the continued sealing of supporting documents, filed in connection with the petition to confirm that award, was appropriate. Clearwater Insurance and the respondent insurance companies were parties to multiple reinsurance contracts and arbitrated their dispute concerning amounts billed under those contracts. Clearwater’s petition to confirm the arbitration award was unopposed and the court found no basis for vacating, modifying, or correcting it. The court did, however, question whether the continued sealing of documents, requested by both parties, was warranted. The documents were filed under seal because their public filing would allegedly violate a confidentiality agreement between the parties. This, the court found, did not justify the sealing nor overcome the strong presumption of public access to judicial documents. The parties were directed to submit additional briefing to the court on this issue. Clearwater Insurance Co. v. Granite State Insurance Co., No. 1:15-cv-00165 (USDC S.D.N.Y. Feb. 5, 2015).

This post written by Renee Schimkat.

See our disclaimer.