• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

  • About
    • Events
  • Articles
    • Treaty Tips
    • Special Focus
    • Market
  • Contact
  • Exclusive Content
    • Blog Staff Picks
    • Cat Risks
    • Regulatory Modernization
    • Webinars
  • Subscribe
You are here: Home / Reinsurance Regulation / MISSISSIPPI SUPREME COURT RULES IN INSURER’S FAVOR IN WINDSTORM POOL ASSESSMENT DISPUTE

MISSISSIPPI SUPREME COURT RULES IN INSURER’S FAVOR IN WINDSTORM POOL ASSESSMENT DISPUTE

July 11, 2016 by Carlton Fields

In a dispute concerning a post-Hurricane Katrina assessment levied by a state-based windstorm pool, the Mississippi Supreme Court recently held that an insurer was entitled to submit revised information pertaining to its alleged overpayment made to the pool, despite the pool’s position that the submission was untimely.

The Mississippi Windstorm Underwriting Association (the “Windpool”) is a statutorily created “insurer of last resort” that provides wind and hail insurance to citizens on Mississippi’s Gulf Coast. Arrowood Indemnity Company was a member of the Windpool, writing property insurance in the state. As a member, Arrowood was required to participate in the Windpool’s expenses, losses, and profits, which was calculated based upon its reported percentages of wind and hail insurance premium writings in Mississippi during the preceding calendar year. Members of the Windpool were subject to additional assessments, based on their participation percentage, if losses in a given year exceeded the pool’s assets. To incentivize insurers to underwrite more difficult risks, members that voluntarily wrote wind and hail policies on the coast received credits that would reduce—or possibly eliminate—their portion of an assessment. Losses arising from Hurricane Katrina depleted the Windpool’s assets, requiring it to issue a substantial assessment on its members. Because the assessment was based on information submitted by each member-insurer, they were given the opportunity to reexamine the data previously reported for the operative underwriting year. Arrowood’s submission failed to claim the appropriate credits available to it by statute, resulting in an alleged $5 million dollar overpayment. Its submission, however, was based on incorrect information provided by the Windpool regarding certain excess policies issued by Arrowood. Accordingly, it requested an opportunity to submit the correct information. The Windpool denied Arrowood’s request on the grounds that the deadline for corrections had passed.

Litigation followed, and the Mississippi Insurance Commissioner and the Hinds County Chancery Court affirmed the Windpool’s decision. On appeal, the Mississippi Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Windpool’s reporting deadline was tolled because its incorrect representation precipitated Arrowood’s incorrect data submission. The Court remanded the matter to the Mississippi Insurance Commissioner for further proceedings. Arrowood Indemnity Co. v. Mississippi Windstorm Underwriting Association, No. 2014-CA-01638-SCT (Miss. June 16, 2016).

This post written by Rob DiUbaldo.

See our disclaimer.

Filed Under: Reinsurance Regulation, Week's Best Posts

Primary Sidebar

Carlton Fields Logo

A blog focused on reinsurance and arbitration law and practice by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Focused Topics

Hot Topics

Read the results of Artemis’ latest survey of reinsurance market professionals concerning the state of the market and their intentions for 2019.

Recent Updates

Market (1/27/2019)
Articles (1/2/2019)

See our advanced search tips.

Subscribe

If you would like to receive updates to Reinsurance Focus® by email, visit our Subscription page.
© 2008–2025 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · Disclaimers and Conditions of Use

Reinsurance Focus® is a registered service mark of Carlton Fields. All Rights Reserved.

Please send comments and questions to the Reinsurance Focus Administrators

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.