Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

NEW YORK’S HIGH COURT SCALES BACK REINSURANCE LIABILITY CAP

by

In Excess Insurance Co. Ltd. v Factory Mutual Insurance Co., 3 NY3d 577 (N.Y. 2004), New York’s high court held that, under a facultative reinsurance agreement, the reinsurer’s liability was limited to a per occurrence cap, despite the fact that that the underlying policy covered expenses, such as underlying defense costs, in addition to indemnity for losses.

On a certified question from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, that same court addressed the scope of its holding in Excess, finding that its prior decision does not impose a per se cap, but that rather the question of the limits of liability under a facultative reinsurance agreement is governed by the specific terms and provisions of the facultative agreement at issue. The Court noted that its decision in Excess was limited to the facts before it, and did not announce a presumption or rule of construction favoring a cap in all factual circumstances: “Under New York law generally, and in Excess in particular, there is neither a rule of construction nor a presumption that a per occurrence liability limitation in a reinsurance contract caps all obligations of the reinsurer, such as payments made to reimburse the reinsured’s defense costs.”

It distinguished Excess on its facts, noting that in Excess, the loss adjustment expenses were incurred in litigation between the insurer and its policyholder, and they were not costs that the insurer was obligated to pay under the terms of the underlying policy itself. It thus held that, “[w]hether a similar (or even identical) limitation clause would apply to third-party defense costs, in a certificate reinsuring a liability insurance policy, was never at issue” in Excess.

Limiting its ruling to the certified question before it, the Court did not analyze the issue further to determine the ultimate outcome. Rather, the case now reverts back to the Second Circuit, given this guidance.

Global Reinsurance Corporation of America v. Century Indemnity Co., No. 124 (N.Y. Dec. 14, 2017).

This post written by John Pitblado.
See our disclaimer.

COURT REFUSES TO RECONSIDER ARBITRATOR’S FACTUAL DETERMINATIONS

by

In a case emphasizing the deference courts give to factual findings of arbitrators, a magistrate judge in the Eastern District of New York has confirmed an arbitration award granting damages and attorneys’ fees to a company that repossessed a leased car when the leasee fell behind on his payments.

The case arose out of the lease of a car by plaintiff Kevin Love and his wife Maria. After the Loves failed to make timely payments on the lease, defendant BMW Financial Services repossessed the car, sold it at auction, and sought payment of a deficiency balance. Mr. Love sued BMW in state court, where he asserted Fair Credit Reporting Act, tort, and contract claims. BMW removed the case to federal court, then successfully moved to compel arbitration per the terms of the lease agreement. The arbitrator entered an award in favor of BMW, rejecting all of Mr. Love’s claims and awarding BMW $34,826.64 in damages plus interest and $50,000 in attorneys’ fees. BMW then moved in federal court to confirm the award and sought its fees incurred in connection with that proceeding, and Mr. Love cross-moved to vacate the award.

The court confirmed the award, emphasizing that courts in the Second Circuit will not vacate an arbitration award except in narrowly-defined circumstances described in the Federal Arbitration Act or if the court finds that it was rendered in “‘manifest disregard’ of the law or the terms of the parties’ agreement.” The court further emphasized that manifest disregard of the evidence is not a grounds for vacatur within the Second Circuit. Thus, the court rejected Mr. Love’s claim that the arbitration award was too large because the arbitrator failed to properly account for the time that the car was not available to Mr. Love, finding that it had no power to review such a factual finding. The court likewise rejected Mr. Love’s argument that the arbitrator’s decision dismissing his FCRA claim should be vacated, as this was also based on a non-reviewable finding of fact. The court also found that because the plain language of the lease provided for attorneys’ fees incurred in connection with a default on the lease, BMW was entitled to recover the $12,690.02 in attorneys’ fees it incurred in seeking to have the award confirmed and responding to Mr. Love’s motion for vacatur.

Love v. BMW Financial Services NA, LLC, No. 15-cv-0124 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2017)

This post written by Jason Brost.

See our disclaimer.

MISSOURI COURT HOLDS ARBITRATION CLAUSE IN INSURANCE CONTRACT UNENFORCEABLE AS AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY AND UNDER GOVERNING LAW

by

A Missouri district court recently held a mandatory arbitration provision was unenforceable in an insurance coverage dispute after an electrician was injured on the job and won an uncontested judgment in state court against Solaris Power Services (“Solaris”). His employer was insured by Liberty Mutual and had excess insurance through AEGIS. The plaintiffs in the present case, including Solaris, sued both insurers and alleged they should have been additional insureds under both policies and their coverage claims were wrongly denied. AEGIS moved to stay the proceedings and compel arbitration pursuant to a mandatory arbitration provision in its excess insurance policy. The various parties disputed which state’s law applied. The court ultimately denied the motion, holding the mandatory arbitration provision was unenforceable.

First, the court concluded the arbitration clause was unenforceable as it contravened Missouri public policy. Missouri choice of law rules allow for the application of another state’s law as long as the law “is not contrary to a fundamental policy of Missouri.” Application of North Dakota law (as advocated for by AEGIS) or any other state’s law that would enforce the arbitration provision was inappropriate as it would contravene Missouri law prohibiting mandatory arbitration clauses in insurance contracts.

Next, the court concluded that even under a traditional choice of law analysis, the arbitration clause was still unenforceable. Missouri choice of law for insurance coverage disputes provides certain factors to consider in determining what law to apply, “[i]n the absence of effective choice of law by the parties.” Here, the court found the insurance policy contained an effective choice of law provision where it stated construction “in accordance with the laws of the jurisdiction in which the situation forming the basis for the controversy arose.” The accident’s location in Kansas therefore dictated Kansas law governed. Because arbitration provisions in insurance contracts are unenforceable under Kansas law, the court reached the same conclusion it previously did that the provision was unenforceable.

Simon v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., Case No. 17-152 (W.D. Mo. Dec. 8, 2017).

This post written by Thaddeus Ewald .

See our disclaimer.

CALIFORNIA DOI AMENDS REGULATION OF REINSURANCE

by

The California Department of Insurance (DOI) has adopted a set of amendments, effective January 1, 2018, to its regulations regarding reinsurance accounting, agreements and oversight. These changes were made to conform the regulations with the requirements of the federal Nonadmitted and Reinsurance Reform Act (NRRA), changes to the California Insurance Code, NAIC Model #787, and the practices of the DOI.

The amendments include several changes that clarify which regulations apply only to California domestic insurers versus which apply to both domestic and foreign (i.e., domiciled outside of California) insurers. This is a response to the preemption by the NRRA of certain state laws regarding reinsurance agreements when applied to nondomestic insurers. Among other things, the amendments make it clear that foreign insurers no longer have to file indemnity reinsurance transactions for commissioner approval. The amendments also include changes conforming the regulations to a 2013 change in the California Insurance Code that prevents the Commissioner from denying financial statement credit to a foreign ceding insurer if that credit is recognized by the ceding insurer’s domestic state and that state’s solvency requirement have been accredited by the NAIC or are substantially similar to the NAIC standards.

The largest additions made by the amendments adopt NAIC Model #787, which the NAIC created to establish uniform minimum standards for securing the obligations under captive reinsurance treaties and reserve financing arrangements. Model #787 is expected to become part of the NAIC’s accreditation standards within the next few years, and the adoption of its provisions in these regulations is intended to ensure that California will meet those accreditation standards whenever that occurs.

Additionally, in the section of the regulations providing that a domestic insurer must generally “retain at least 10% of direct premium written per line of business,” the amendments replace the phrase “per line of business” with “per reinsurance agreement,” as the Commissioner has historically exercised his discretion to apply this retention requirement to reinsurance agreements as a whole, which often include multiple lines of business. Further, the amendments remove all references to and requirements for “volume insurers,” a concept that no longer exists under California law.

Cal. Code Regs. tit. 10, §§ 2303 – 2303.29; Cal. Office of Administrative Law, 2017-1012-04 (Nov. 27, 2017); Cal. Dept. of Ins., Initial Statement of Reasons, Reinsurance Oversight, REG-2016-00024 (May 1, 2017)

This post written by Jason Brost.

See our disclaimer.

NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS HOLDS THERE IS NO PRESUMPTION OF EXPENSE-INCLUSIVE CAPS IN LIABILITY LIMIT CLAUSES IN FACULTATIVE REINSURANCE CERTIFICATES

by

The New York Court of Appeals recently answered in the negative a question certified to it by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit regarding prior precedent and whether per occurrence liability limits in facultative reinsurance contracts cap all obligations of the reinsurer, including for expenses such as defense costs. In doing so, the state’s highest court reiterated that general principles of contract construction apply to reinsurance contracts.

Specifically, the Second Circuit asked whether the New York Court of Appeals’ 2004 decision in Excess Ins. Co. v. Factory Mut. Ins. Co.:

“impose[d] either a rule of construction, or a strong presumption, that a per occurrence liability cap in a reinsurance contract limits the total reinsurance available under the contract to the amount of the cap regardless of whether the underlying policy is understood to cover expenses such as, for instance, defense costs?”

In the underlying Second Circuit case, the cedent (“Century”) billed its reinsurer (“Global”) over $82,000 in loss and over $244,000 in expenses for a particular claim, even though the certificate’s stated limit was $250,000. Citing Excess, Global argued the $250,000 limit operated as a cap on its ultimate reinsurance obligations, while Century argued the cap applied only to loss (indemnity) and that Global was still responsible to cover expenses in addition to the limit.

The court began its analysis with a detailed explanation of its decision in Excess. There, the court interpreted the limitations clause in a facultative reinsurance certificate to operate an expense-inclusive cap. In the decade-plus since the Excess decision, however, some courts have interpreted the ruling to mean that third-party defense costs incurred by a cedent are unambiguously or presumptively subject to the amount of the stated liability limits in such certificates.

Answering the certified question in the negative, the court rejected that Excess established such a per se rule on expense-inclusive caps. It distinguished the issues presented in Excess and in the underlying Second Circuit case, with the former addressing whether the reinsurance contract at issue’s limitations clause established a cap for both liability costs and expenses or merely liability costs. Specifically, the court noted, the Excess case read the limitations clause in context of the entirety of the reinsurance contract in line with general principles of contract construction. Additionally, the court distinguished Excess on the fact that the expenses incurred were in litigation between the insurer and its policyholder, not costs (such as third-party defense costs) the insurer was obligated to pay pursuant to the terms of the underlying contract itself. Thus, the court concluded that Excess did not address whether similar limitations clauses would require reinsurers cover third-party defense costs in excess of those limits.

The court “h[e]ld definitively” that Excess did not supersede the ordinary rules of contract interpretation that otherwise apply to reinsurance contracts. Thus, under the Court of Appeals holding, New York law does not impose a rule nor a presumption that a liability limitation clause automatically caps all obligations, including defense costs and other expenses, owed by a reinsurer without regard for the specific provisions in the reinsurance contract, and the court answered the Second Circuit’s question in the negative. Global Reinsurance Corp. of Am. v. Century Indem. Co., No. 124 (N.Y. Dec. 14, 2017).

This post written by Thaddeus Ewald .

See our disclaimer.