Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

CONNECTICUT AMENDS LAW CONCERNING CAPTIVE INSURERS

by

Connecticut has amended its law concerning captive insurers doing business in the state to include, in part, a new provision on how foreign captive insurers can become Connecticut domestic companies and revisions on how captive insurers can take credit for certain reinsurance risk. The law defines a “captive insurer” as “an insurance company owned by another organization whose exclusive purpose is to insure risks of the parent organization and affiliated companies or, in the case of groups and associations, an insurance organization owned by the insureds whose exclusive purpose is to insure risks of member organizations and group members and their affiliates.” The changes to the law become effective October 1, 2014. Conn. Sub. Senate Bill No. 188, Public Act No. 14-6.

This post written by Renee Schimkat.

See our disclaimer.

COURT AMENDS OPINION AND ORDER TO ADD PAYABLE CLAIM UNDER RETROCESSION AGREEMENTS

by

A federal district court has amended its opinion and order that held in favor of cedent Munich Re on its breach of contract action against American National Insurance Company to add a covered insurance claim to the list of claims previously deemed properly ceded to ANICO and payable to Munich Re under the parties’ retrocession agreements. In that opinion and order, reported here on March 10, 2014, the court rejected all of ANICO’s claims as to rescission of those agreements and held that Munich Re was entitled to contractual damages in the form of payment on all claims that the court found were properly ceded. The court granted Munich Re’s unopposed motion to amend that opinion and order to include a claim that, by clerical oversight, was previously omitted. Munich Reinsurance America, Inc. v. American National Insurance Co., Case No. 09-6435 (USDC D.N.J. Mar. 25, 2014).

This post written by Renee Schimkat.

See our disclaimer.

COURT QUASHES SUBPOENA SEEKING UNISSUED ARBITRATION AWARD

by

After striking the affirmative defense of failure to mitigate, a court quashed a subpoena issued to an arbitrator seeking an unissued arbitration award in a dispute between certain defendants and their reinsurer. The case involved a lawsuit by a state-appointed receiver, Jo Ann Howard & Associates, against numerous defendants stemming from a scheme to defraud consumers in connection with pre-need funeral services contracts issued by Lincoln Memorial. After Howard was appointed, the receivership court stayed the arbitration proceedings between Lincoln Memorial and its reinsurer, Hannover Life Reassurance Company of America. One of the issues pending in the arbitration at the time was Lincoln Memorial’s claim for damages against Hannover arising from Lincoln Memorial’s allegations that Hannover’s arbitration-related conduct had brought Lincoln Memorial to the brink of insolvency.

Two of the other defendants, both banks, raised as affirmative defenses Howard’s failure to mitigate damages. The banks alleged Howard’s decision not to pursue Lincoln Memorial’s claims against Hannover caused Howard’s damages. The banks subpoenaed the arbitrator in the Lincoln/Hannover arbitration to obtain a copy of the unissued arbitration award. The court granted Howard’s motion to strike the banks’ failure to mitigate defense, finding the defense legally insufficient. The defense was not causally related to Howard’s damages claim because Howard’s claims against Lincoln Memorial arose from Lincoln Memorial’s handling of pre-need trust accounts, and not from Lincoln Memorial’s insolvency. Further, a receiver’s ability to recover assets or damages for wrongdoing is important to the public, and allowing such an affirmative defense would encumber a receiver’s ability to perform these functions. Jo Ann Howard & Associates, P.C. v. J. Douglas Cassity, Case No. 4:09CV01252 ERW (USDC E.D. Mo. May 9, 2014).

This post written by Leonor Lagomasino.

See our disclaimer.

CLAUSE WHERE PARTY DEMANDING ARBITRATION IS NOT A PARTY TO ALLEGEDLY TERMINATED REINSURANCE AGREEMENT

by

A federal district court has taken under advisement plaintiff’s motion for injunction and defendant’s cross-motion to compel arbitration after conducting a hearing on the matter. The issue to be decided is whether CX can compel Trenwick to participate in an arbitration based upon a reinsurance agreement as to which CX was not a party and which, according to Trenwick, was terminated. At the core of this dispute is a reinsurance agreement under which Trenwick reinsured Commercial Casualty Insurance Company. CX argued the reinsurance agreement included a “cut-through” provision which gave CX the right to collect directly against Trenwick even though CX was not a party to the reinsurance agreement. Trenwick denied liability under this cut-through provision and further denied that the cut-through provision gave its beneficiaries, including CX, any rights under the agreement’s arbitration clause. Additionally, Trenwick argued that the reinsurance agreement was terminated further to a commutation agreement between Trenwick and CCIC’s Liquidator and, as a result, terminated any rights CX may have had under the cut-through provision and any requirement to arbitrate CX’s claims. CX responded that it was not a party to the commutation agreement, which could therefore not extinguish CX’s right to arbitrate. CX also argued that Trenwick’s termination defense must be arbitrated. Trenwick America Reinsurance Corp. v. CX Reinurance Company Limited, Case No. 3:13-cv-01264 (JBA) (USDC D. Conn. Apr. 28, 2014).

This post written by Leonor Lagomasino.

See our disclaimer.

CLAIMS AGAINST LOAN SERVICER AND FORCE-PLACED INSURER ALLEGING COMMISSION AND REINSURANCE KICKBACK SCHEME SURVIVE DISMISSAL

by

A putative class action involving force-placed home insurance and an alleged scheme for mortgage lenders to obtain kickbacks in the form of commissions, reinsurance premium, and other fees, has survived a motion to dismiss. The complaint alleged that the mortgage lender, loan servicer, and insurer participated in a scheme of entering into exclusive agreements to force place insurance at grossly excessive rates in return for the kickbacks. The loan servicer and insurer moved to dismiss two Florida law claims: unjust enrichment and tortious interference with a business relationship. Regarding the claim for unjust enrichment, the court held that the complaint sufficiently alleged that the named plaintiffs conferred a “direct benefit” on the servicer and insurer (force-placed premiums), that the servicer and insurer retained the benefit, and that the benefit would be inequitable for them to retain. With respect to tortious interference, the court held that the complaint sufficiently alleged that the servicer and insurer intentionally interfered with the lender’s and plaintiffs’ business relationship in bad faith, which resulted in damages to the plaintiffs. The court held that the complaint adequately alleged the causes of action. Hamilton v. SunTrust Mortgage, Inc., Case No. 13-60749-CIV (USDC S.D. Fla. March 28, 2014).

This post written by Michael Wolgin.

See our disclaimer.