Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

NEW YORK COURT PREDICTS THAT CALIFORNIA COURTS WOULD RECOGNIZE BAD FAITH EXCEPTION TO NOTICE-PREJUDICE RULE IN REINSURANCE CONTEXT

by

The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania sued its reinsurer Argonaut for liability arising from underlying asbestos litigation. ICSOP issued excess umbrella coverage to its insured, Kaiser, which manufactured products containing asbestos and faced underlying liability from lawsuits alleging asbestos-related injury. ICSOP obtained facultative reinsurance from Argonaut covering a percentage of the Kaiser excess policy. ICSOP received notice in 2001 that Kaiser had exhausted primary coverage, implicating the umbrella coverage. Kaiser ultimately brought ICSOP into a coverage lawsuit in California in 2002, which was litigated extensively until a 2009 mediation. However, ICSOP did not notify Argonaut until 2009 of the potential exposure under the facultative reinsurance, long after the court had made a number of rulings adverse to ICSOP. Argonaut denied ICSOP’s claim citing, among other things, untimely notice. ICSOP filed suit and the parties cross-moved for summary judgment on the late notice issue.

The Southern District of New York, applying California law, held that notice had been untimely, but that in order to be excused from paying claims Argonaut had to prove that it had been prejudiced by the late notice. Although it found that Argonaut had submitted sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of fact as to whether it had been prejudiced by the untimely notice, in anticipating evidentiary burdens at trial, the court considered whether Argonaut might be excused from showing prejudice if it demonstrated that ICSOP had acted in bad faith in providing untimely notice. The bad faith exception to the prejudice requirement has been adopted in New York and some other states. Acknowledging that California courts had not addressed whether to recognize the bad faith exception, the court predicted that California courts would recognize the exception. The court permitted Argonaut to take discovery on ICSOP’s alleged bad faith before proceeding to trial. Insurance Co. of the State of Pennsylvania v. Argonaut Insurance Co., No. 12 Civ. 6494 (USDC S.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2013).

This post written by John Pitblado.

See our disclaimer.

COURT DECLINES TO STAY LITIGATION OF CLAIMS UNDER GUARANTEE DESPITE COMMON ISSUES WITH PENDING REINSURANCE ARBITRATION

by

This case concerns overlapping reinsurance agreements, retrocession agreements related to the rinsured risks, and guarantees of the retrocession agreements. The reinsurance and retrocession agreements all contain arbitration provisions, but the guarantees do not. Disputes arose, an arbitration commenced concerning the retrocession agreements and a lawsuit was filed on the related guarantees. On a motion to dismiss, the court held that the claimant did not have to “exhaust” efforts to collect under the reinsurance or retrocession agreements before bringing suit under the guarantees. The court denied a request to stay the claims based on the guarantees pending the arbitration of disputes under the retrocession agreements, because the party seeking the stay had failed to establish that there were issues common to the arbitration and the court action which would be finally determined by the arbitration. While liabiity under the reinsurane and retrocession agreements might be considered an issue common to the arbitration and court action, the court found this factor overcome by evidence that the defendants had delayed and abused the arbitration process. Finally, the court rejected arguments that the guarantee claims failed to state a claim. Greenlight Reinsurance, Ltd. v. Appalachian Underwriters, Inc., Case No. 12-8544 (USDC S.D. N.Y.July 25, 2013).

This post written by Rollie Goss.

See our disclaimer.

FASCINATING DEVELOPMENTS IN THE INSURANCE-LINKED SECURITIES AND LONGEVITY TRANSFER SPACES

by

There are two interesting regulatory developments of interest to the insurance-linked securities space. First, the Securities and Exchange Commission is considering a proposed rule which would change the regulation of money market mutual funds under the Investment Company Act of 1940. One alternative being considered is to require funds to sell and redeem shares based on the current market-based value of the securities, i.e., that they transact at a “floating” net asset value per share. If funds in cat bond reinsurance trusts or more traditional collateralized reinsurance trusts were invested in such floating value instruments, the value of the collateral might decline and adversesly affect the amount of reinsurance or the amount of collateral available to a ceding insurer. However, the proposed rule exempts from the floating NAV requirement funds which are 80% or more invested in cash, government securities or fully collateralized repurchase agreements. The investment guidelines of most new cat bonds and collateral agreements would come within this exception, and the conservative investment of trust assets should avoid the potential adverse impact of the floating NAV requirement in the current proposed rule.

Second, the European Union’s Joint Forum, which is composed of the EU’s banking, insurance and securities regulators, has issued a report titled Longevity risk transfer markets: market structure, growth drivers and impediments, and potential risks (August 2013). This report describes the three types of transactions that are being used to transfer longevity risk: buy-out transactions; buy-in transactions; and longevity swaps or insurance. Given that the total global amount of annuity and pension related longevity risk exposure ranges from $15-25 trillion, understanding these risks, the alternative risk transfer methods of dealing with them and the views of regulators concerning such issues is important for anyone interested in the potential development of the equivalent of a cat bond market for longevity risks.

This post written by Rollie Goss.

See our disclaimer.

COURT REJECTS NUMEROUS DEFENSES TO ARBITRATION BY NON-SIGNATORY AND APPOINTS UMPIRE FOR ARBITRATION TO PROCEED

by

In a decision granting a workers’ compensation insurer’s petition to appoint an umpire and proceed with arbitration, a court recently analyzed and rejected a number of defenses to arbitration made by the two affiliated company respondents. The court considered whether one of the companies, a non-signatory to the underlying agreement, could be compelled to arbitrate. Applying principles of actual and apparent agency, the court found that the signatory had authority to obtain insurance for the non-signatory affiliate and was therefore subject to the agreement, based on the contract language, and other close connections between the affiliated companies. Next, the court rejected the respondents’ claim that the court lacked jurisdiction based on a forum selection clause in the agreement. The court also refused to stay the action pending a subsequently filed overlapping action in California and refused to find that the agreement was unenforceable because it had not first been submitted to the California Department of Insurance. The court found that the California DOI defense constituted a challenge to the entire insurance agreement, rather than specifically the arbitration provision, and thus the court could direct that arbitrability be resolved by the arbitration panel under the FAA. On this last point, the court found that the California requirements did not “reverse-preempt” FAA arbitration under the McCarran-Ferguson Act, because the court found no conflict between the California requirements and the agreement to arbitrate. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. Personnel Plus, Inc., Case No. 1:12-cv-04647 (USDC S.D.N.Y. July 23, 2013).

This post written by Michael Wolgin.

See our disclaimer.

DENIAL OF ARBITRATION OF STOP-LOSS INSURANCE DISPUTE AFFIRMED UNDER STATE INSURANCE LAW

by

The president of a corporate administrator of a trust appealed the denial of his motion to compel arbitration against a company that sued him individually in a case seeking benefits and other relief for disputed medical stop-loss coverage. The appellate court initially held that, although the president was a non-signatory to the underlying agreements, the president could enforce the arbitration provisions based on agency and the plaintiff’s allegations, which treated the president and his corporation as one and the same. The court concluded, however, that arbitration could not be compelled under state insurance law, which prohibits arbitration involving certain insurance agreements. The court found that under the McCarran-Ferguson Act, the state insurance law was not preempted by the FAA or the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. The court held that the state law regulated insurance, and the agreement at issue provided “indemnity” and was therefore properly subject to the state insurance law as a contract of “insurance.” Scott v. Louisville Bedding Co., No. 2012-CA-000252-MR (Ky. Ct. App. July 12, 2013).

This post written by Michael Wolgin.

See our disclaimer.