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

ENGLISH APPELLATE COURT DISMISSES APPEAL OF JUDGMENT DECLARING NO LIABILITY UNDER A CARGO LIABILITY REINSURANCE POLICY

by

A judgment found that certain Lloyd’s reinsurers were not liable to cover the destruction of cargo on board a vessel that capsized in the Philippines during a Typhoon. The trial court relied on a typhoon warranty clause contained in both the reinsurance policy and the underlying insurance policy, which deemed the policy void if a vessel sailed out of port (1) “when there is a typhoon or storm warning at that port”; or (2) when the destination or intended route “may be within the possible path of the typhoon or storm announced at the port of sailing, port of destination or any intervening point.” The trial court had found that there was a typhoon or storm warning at the port of sailing, and that the vessel’s route was within the possible path of the typhoon or storm announced at the port.

On appeal, the cedent argued that the first condition of the typhoon warranty clause was not breached under a four-step analysis: (1) the reinsurance policy contained a follow the settlements clause, (2) which required the reinsurance coverage to be interpreted like the underlying insurance policy, (3) the insurance policy should be construed in accordance with what an experienced insured would have understood the storm notice to mean, and (4) in this case, the storm notice would not be understood by an experienced insured as a sufficient warning against embarking. The court rejected this argument, holding that the clause must be understood according to only its plain meaning, both with respect to the clause in the insurance policy and the parallel clause in the reinsurance policy, and here it was undisputed that a storm warning had been issued. The court also rejected the cedent’s contention that the intended path of the vessel would not have crossed the possible path of the typhoon, finding that it was proper for the trial court to determine that the intended route was within the typhoon’s path. Amlin Corporate Member Ltd. v. Oriental Assurance Corp., [2014] EWCA Civ 1135 (Royal Courts of Justice, July 8, 2014).

This post written by Michael Wolgin.

See our disclaimer.

NAIC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ADOPTS FRAMEWORK FOR CHANGES TO CAPTIVE RESERVE REQUIREMENTS

by

NAIC’s Executive Committee met at NAIC’s annual meeting in Louisville, Kentucky on August 16 and 17, 2014. The Executive Committee furthered its action on reserve requirements for captive reinsurers (as reported here last year) and adopted the “XXX/AXXX Reinsurance Framework” which will guide development of proposed regulatory changes to the types of assets and securities required to meet statutory reserve requirements.

Arising from worries about potentially abusive use of captives creating a “shadow insurance industry (as reported here in 2012), the framework would, among other things, require ceding companies to disclose the assets backing their risk-based-capital (RBC) computations.

As noted in the Principle-Based Reserving (PBR) Implementation (EX) Task Force’s report to the Executive (EX) Committee, the framework:

  • addresses concerns regarding reserve financing transactions without encouraging such transactions to move off-shore. The changes would be prospective and apply to XXX term life insurance business and AXXX universal life with secondary guarantees.
  • requires the ceding company to collateralize a portion of the total statutory reserves with hard assets such as cash and securities, collateralize the remainder with other assets and forms of security identified as acceptable by regulators, disclose the assets and securities used; and hold an RBC cushion as required for other business.
  • will be codified through the Credit for Reinsurance Model Law, with the creation of a new model regulation.

The PBR subcommittee’s report is based on the June 4 Rector & Associates, Inc. report’s recommendations (a copy of which is available on the PBR taskforce’s website: http://www.naic.org/committees_ex_pbr_implementation_tf.htm).

This post written by John Pitblado.

See our disclaimer.

MARYLAND ADOPTS CREDIT FOR REINSURANCE REGULATIONS

by

The Maryland Insurance Commissioner adopted regulations regarding Credit for Reinsurance effective August 18, 2014. The regulations will implement changes made to Title 5, Subtitle 9 of the Maryland Insurance Article, and are based upon recent amendments to model law and regulation developed by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners entitled “Credit for Reinsurance Model Law” (No. 785) and “Credit for Reinsurance Model Regulation” (No. 786), respectively. The regulations provide standards for a licensed ceding insurer to receive credit for reinsurance ceded to a certified reinsurer as a reduction of collateral requirements and include provisions that establish: 1) eligibility requirements to be considered for certification as a certified reinsurer; 2) eligibility requirements of a jurisdiction in which an assuming insurer may be domiciled to be considered a qualified jurisdiction; 3) eligibility requirements to be considered for approval as an accredited reinsurer; 4) a rating method to be used in the certification process; and, 5) a sliding scale with the level of required collateral varying from 0% to 100% of ceded liabilities based on the certified reinsurer’s rating.

This post written by Kelly A. Cruz-Brown.

See our disclaimer.

REINSURER’S EXPOSURE CAPPED AT THE CERTIFICATE LIMITS: NO OBLIGATION TO PAY DEFENSE EXPENSES ABOVE THE LIMITS

by

A New York federal court recently was presented with a reinsurance dispute about the amount a reinsurer was required to pay under certain reinsurance Certificates. The issue was whether the reinsurer’s obligation was capped at the stated limit, or whether the reinsurer was also liable for defense costs in excess of the limit that the direct insurer had reimbursed. The court ruled that the “Certificate Limits” stated in the “Reinsurance Accepted” section of the Certificates capped the maximum amount that the reinsurer could be obligated to pay for combined loss and expenses.

The court rejected the direct insurer’s argument that the reinsurer should have to pay additional sums for defense costs above the amount of the “Certificate Limits,” ruling that “the unambiguous language in the ‘Reinsurance Accepted’ sections of the Certificates does not differentiate between reinsurance accepted for loss versus reinsurance accepted for expenses, but simply provides a total cap on liability. If the parties intended to exclude expenses from the total liability cap, they could have made that clear in the language of the Certificates.” Under New York law, for costs to be excluded from the liability cap in a reinsurance certificate, language in the certificate must expressly state that such costs were excluded from the indemnification limit. Because nothing in the Certificates that expenses were to be excluded from the Certificate Limits, the court entered summary judgment in favor of the reinsurer. Global Reinsurance Corp. of America v. Century Indemnity Co., Case No. 1:13-CV-6577 (USDC S.D. N.Y. Aug. 15, 2014).

This post written by Catherine Acree.

See our disclaimer.

COURT DENIES PETITION TO APPOINT ARBITRATION UMPIRE IN RETROCESSION DISPUTE

by

Odyssey Reinsurance Co. petitioned the court to appoint an umpire to serve in arbitration with its retrocessionaries, certain Lloyd’s underwriters and Reliastar Reinsurance Group, over a disputed reinsurance claim. Odyssey argued that arbitration had been unduly delayed due to what it contended were poorly qualified candidates proposed by the retrocessionaires. The court held that Odyssey’s arguments were insufficient to obtain relief from the court at that time, and that in its view, there had “not been a breakdown in the process that justifies court intervention.” The court directed the parties “to proceed to the next stage of arbitrator selection” as described in the agreements between them. Odyssey Reinsurance Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London Syndicate 53, et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-09014 (USDC S.D.N.Y. June 30, 2014) (Opinion & Order and Judgment).

This post written by Michael Wolgin.

See our disclaimer.