Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

DISTRICT COURT RULES ON DISCOVERY IN BAD FAITH CASE

by

In a dispute between the excess and primary liability insurance carriers of a common insured based upon the primary insurer’s alleged breach of the duty to defend the common insured, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (the “Court”) ordered the production of the complete personnel files for claims adjusters involved in the claims process for the case at issue. The excess carrier, which sought production of the claim adjuster personnel files asserted that the personnel files were relevant because: 1) the primary carrier’s guidelines stated that staff counsel is not able to make decisions regarding the claims without first obtaining authority from the claims department, and 2) the adjusters’ experiences and backgrounds were relevant to determining whether they were able to make prudent decisions regarding the underlying claim. The primary carrier argued that it should not be required to produce personnel files because the files could contain sensitive information, the production request was not narrowly tailored, and the excess insurer could obtain the information it seeks when it deposes its employees. The Court found that the personnel files may contain relevant and highly probative information concerning the experiences and backgrounds of the adjusters that handled the claim with staff counsel during the underlying suit. However, given the potential sensitive nature of such files, the Court ordered an in camera inspection of those files. See RSUI Indemnity Company v. American States Insurance, Case No. 2:12-cv-02820 (U.S.D.C. E.D. La. Feb. 18, 2015).

This post written by Kelly A. Cruz-Brown.

See our disclaimer.

FEDERAL COURT REMANDS INSURANCE DISPUTE TO STATE COURT BASED ON WAIVER

by

A New York federal court remanded a reinsurance dispute to state court, based on the defendant’s waiver of its right to remove. Plaintiff R&Q Reinsurance Company (“R&Q”) brought an action against Allianz Insurance Company (“Allianz”) regarding a dispute as to R&Q’s indemnity obligations to Allianz under two reinsurance contracts. Allianz timely removed the action, as it met all the requirements for federal diversity jurisdiction. However, R&Q moved to remand, based on the fact that Allianz had already answered and counterclaimed in state court, and had therefore waived its right to remove. The court agreed, granting the remand, finding that Allianz’s counterclaims, which sought affirmative relief, constituted a voluntary submission to the state court’s jurisdiction. The court denied R&Q’s bid for attorney’s fees, however, finding that Allianz had a reasonable basis on which to remove, particularly given that the action otherwise met the requirements for diversity jurisdiction. R&Q Reinsurance Co. v. Allianz Ins. Co., Case No. 15-00166 (USDC S.D.N.Y. March 20, 2015)

This post written by Catherine Acree.

See our disclaimer.

COURT ADDRESSES HONORABLE ENGAGEMENT PROVISION IN ARBITRATION CLAUSE

by

In First State Insurance Company v. National Cas. Co., 2015 WL 1263147, No. 14-1644 (1st Cir. March 20, 2015), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit (the “Court of Appeals”) affirmed the lower court’s refusal to vacate an arbitration award involving contract interpretation and addressed the operation and effect of an “honorable engagement provision” in an arbitration clause.

In this case, the Appellant/Reinsurer sought to vacate a contract interpretation award involving eight reinsurance and retrocessional agreements because the arbitrators exceeded their scope of powers by re-writing the terms of the parties’ agreements. Specifically, the Appellant/Reinsurer asserted that the payment protocol set forth in the arbitration award was not based on the parties’ agreements and obligated Appellant/Reinsurer to pay billings that may not fall within the terms and conditions of the agreements. The Appellant/Reinsurer further asserted that the payment protocol would foreclose or impair its broad access rights under certain inspection and audit provisions of the agreements by conditioning those rights on the transmittal of an appropriate time-of-payment reservation of rights.

Regarding the payment protocol, the Court of Appeals determined that the payment protocol in the award tracked the plain language of the relevant portions of the parties’ reinsurance agreements. Concerning the challenge to the reservation of rights procedure, the Court of Appeals noted that the arbitration clauses for the reinsurance agreements contained an honorable engagement provision, which directed the arbitrators to consider each agreement as an “honorable engagement rather than merely a legal obligation” and further stated that the arbitrators “are relieved or all judicial formalities and may abstain from following the strict rules of law.” The Court of Appeals held that the honorable engagement provisions empowered arbitrators to grant forms of relief, including equitable remedies not explicitly mentioned in the underlying agreement. The Court of Appeal viewed the honorable engagement provisions as enhancing the prospects for a successful arbitration because they provided the arbitrators with the flexibility to custom-tailor remedies to fit particular circumstances.

This post written by Kelly A. Cruz-Brown.

See our disclaimer.

SECOND CIRCUIT AFFIRMS APPLICATION OF ILLINOIS NOTICE/PREJUDICE RULE IN REINSURANCE ROW

by

Granite State Insurance Company (“Granite State”) brought an action against Clearwater Insurance Company (“Clearwater”) regarding a dispute over reinsurance claims Granite State made, and which Clearwater denied based on late notice. The claims pertained to underlying settlements of a large number of asbestos claims. The reinsurance certificates required prompt notice “of any event or development” which Granite State “reasonably believe[d] might result in a claim.” The district court found that Granite State’s notice to Clearwater under the reinsurance certificates at issue was untimely, and the Second Circuit affirmed.

In particular, the Second Circuit resolved a question raised on appeal pertaining to which state law applied. The parties agreed that, if there was a conflict of laws, Illinois law would apply under a “significant contacts” analysis, versus the law of the state where the action was pending – New York. But Granite State argued that Illinois law did not clearly conflict with New York law, and that therefore the New York federal court should have applied New York’s late notice rule, which requires an affirmative showing of prejudice on the part of the party asserting late notice as a bar to recovery.

The Second Circuit affirmed, finding that Illinois law was sufficiently clear on the issue, and does not require a showing of prejudice. Therefore, the laws were truly in conflict, and conflict of law analysis required application of Illinois law. Clearwater was thus not required to demonstrate that it was prejudiced by Granite State’s late notice in order to refuse to pay Granite State’s claims for reinsurance coverage.  Granite State Ins. Co v. Clearwater Ins. Co., No. 14-1494 (2d Cir. April 2, 2015).

This post written by Catherine Acree.

See our disclaimer.

COURT DIRECTS CEDENTS TO INDICATE WHETHER THEY WILL CONTINUE TO ARGUE AGAINST THE FINALITY OF AN ARBIRATION AWARD TO PRECLUDE ITS CONFIRMATION

by

In a pending dispute in the Southern District of New York arising from a quota share contract of reinsurance between Employers Insurance of Wausau, as reinsurer, and Nutmeg Insurance and Twin City Fire, as cedents, Nutmeg and Twin City argue that issues relating to the parties’ obligations with respect to specific claims arising out of the parties’ reinsurance treaties, and a process to resolve issues relating to those claims, are not yet final and the court therefore lacks jurisdiction to confirm those portions of an arbitration award. The petition to confirm the award, found here, sought to confirm, in part, the arbitration panel’s directive that Nutmeg and Twin City produce certain information and documentation to Wausau supporting the claimed loss at issue. Specifically, the panel directed Nutmeg and Twin City to produce evidence of proof of payment of the loss at issue, copies of the underlying policies at issue, and a narrative and reasonable documentation demonstrating that the loss was within the treaty’s terms.

At issue was the quantum and type of information that must accompany billing in order to trigger Wausau’s payment obligations and whether Wausau may withhold payment pending its request for additional, sometimes privileged, information and documentation. Wausau informed the court that Nutmeg and Twin City’s objections were moot because all parties had performed their obligations and the entire award was now final. The court directed Nutmeg and Twin City to file a letter with the court within five days from the date of its order indicating whether they will persist with their objections to the court’s confirmation of the entire arbitration award. Employers Insurance of Wausau v. Nutmeg Insurance Co., No. 14-CV-9284 (USDC S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2015).

This post written by Renee Schimkat.

See our disclaimer.