Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

Round-Up Of Federal Decisions Involving Questions of Arbitrability

by

Mortensen v. Bresnan Communications, LLC, No. 11-35823 (9th Cir. July 15, 2013) (vacating district court order declining to enforce arbitration agreement between broadband internet provider and consumer, finding 2011 U.S. Supreme Court decision AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion controlling; finding error in district court’s failure to apply New York law despite forum selection clause).

Biernacki v. Service Corp. Int’l, No. 11-17495 (9th Cir. June 10, 2013) (reversing district court order which held that plaintiffs – current and former employees of defendant who initially brought a putative class action in court for which certification was denied – had waived right to seek to compel arbitration, due to participation in litigation for three years. Ninth Circuit court held that merely participating in litigation, and incurring legal expense, insufficient to demonstrate waiver of right to arbitrate).

Safelite Group, Inc. v. Zurich Amer. Ins. Co., Case No. 2:12-cv-536 (USDC S.D. Ohio July 30, 2013) (compelling arbitration where “broad” clause governing “any and all” disputes, includes quasi-contractual claims; reserving questions of arbitrability for arbitrator pursuant to AAA rules incorporated into arbitration provision; staying remaining claims involving non-party until completion of arbitration).

Oracle America, Inc. v. Myriad Group, A.G., No. 11-17186 (9th Cir. July 26, 2013) (reversing denial of motion to compel arbitration, finding question of whether court or arbitrator should decide issues of arbitrability governed by contact language which unmistakably indicated parties’ intent to reserve question for arbitrator).

This post written by John Pitblado.

See our disclaimer.

BRITISH COURT VOIDS REINSURANCE COVERAGE FOR BREACH OF TYPHOON WARRANTY IN MASS-CASUALTY SHIP-SINKING OFF PHILIPPINES

by

Plaintiffs sued defendant primary insurer, Oriental Assurance Company, under a reinsurance contract covering underlying risk of a Philippines shipping company, including 22 scheduled vessels. Among them was the Princess of the Stars, a ferry built in 1984 which, on June 21, 2008, set out from Manila on a trip to Cebu, with 2978 tons of cargo, including cars and SUVs, 713 passengers and 138 crew. It capsized when a typhoon struck, killing 851 people and leaving only 32 survivors. The reinsurance contract contained a “Typhoon Warranty” clause prohibiting a ship setting sail in waters after issuance of a typhoon warning, violation of which voids the policy. After hearing expert testimony and other evidence regarding the ship captain’s and shipping company’s knowledge of typhoon warnings, and decision to nonetheless sail, the UK court held the warranty breached, and the reinsurance cover void. Amlin Corporate Member, Ltd. v. Oriental Assurance Corp., [2013] EWHC 2380 (Comm) (British High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench, July 31, 2013).

This post written by John Pitblado.

See our disclaimer.

COURT APPLIES ENGLISH LAW TO RETROCESSION AGREEMENTS, FINDING SOME CLAIMS OWING AND OTHER CLAIMS BARRED BY STATUTE OF LIMITATION, WITH NO BREACH OF RETENTION WARRANTY

by

U.S.-based insurers wrote risks and obtained reinsurance from a syndicate of reinsurers, for which Republic Insurance was a fronting company. The syndicate obtained retrocessional coverage in the London market through LMX quota share contracts which ran for a number of years. The retrocessional coverage required that the reinsured retain a certain percentage of the risk, which is not an unusual warranty. Claims statements were submitted and paid over several years without dispute, but due to a change in the administration of the retrocessional coverage claims statements were not submitted on the retrocession contracts for about ten years, even though claims had been paid on the underlying coverages. Billings then resumed and a dispute arose. On motions for summary judgment, the trial court held: (1) English law applied to the retrocession contracts since the place of negotiations, contracting, obligations, subject matter, and arbitration situs for the retrocession contracts were primarily focused on London (the fact that the underlying risks were located around the world made that factor of little significance); (2) claims arising during the ten year period of non-billing were barred by the six year English statute of limitation; and (3) later claims were not contested, and were established and owing on an account stated basis. The court found that there was no breach of the retention warranty, even though Republic did not retain the requisite amount of the risk, because the warranty provided for retention by the reinsured, which was defined to be the syndicate rather than the fronting company, and the syndicate did retain the warranted amount of risk. Republic Ins. Co. v. Banco de Seguros del Estado, Case No. 10-C-5039 (USDC N.D. Ill. July 26, 2013).

This post written by Rollie Goss.

See our disclaimer.

ARBITRATION COMPELLED IN TRENWICK REINSURANCE DISPUTE

by

A federal district court granted a motion by reinsurer Unionamerica Insurance Company to dismiss a lawsuit seeking enjoin the allegedly “illegal arbitration” of a reinsurance dispute between Unionamerica and Trenwick American Reinsurance Corp.; the court instead granted Unionamerica’s motion to compel the arbitration. Unionamerica had demanded that Trenwick participate in arbitration concerning Unionamerica’s claim that Trenwick failed to make payments due under a reinsurance assumption agreement. In response, Trenwick filed a lawsuit seeking to enjoin such an arbitration.

The court rejected Trenwick’s suit and compelled arbitration. Although the court found it had jurisdiction to decide threshold questions of arbitrability, it also determined that Unionamerica – a nonsignatory to the reinsurance agreement – could invoke the arbitration provision because of “cut-through” language allowing Unionamerica to rely on all terms of the agreement. The court further determined that the parties’ claims and defenses fell within the arbitration provisions’ scope, which encompassed “any” dispute arising out of or in connection with the agreement. Finally, the court held that Trenwick’s statute of limitations defense was not justiciable in court, but would need to be decided by the arbitrator. Trenwick American Reinsurance Corp. v. Unionamerica Insurance Co., Case No. 3:13cv94 (USDC D. Conn. July 12, 2013).

This post written by Brian Perryman.

See our disclaimer.

DISTRICT COURT ORDERS PRODUCTION OF REINSURANCE AGREEMENT

by

On a motion to compel, a United States District Court in South Dakota ordered production of a reinsurance agreement entered into between Ability Insurance Company and Ability Reinsurance (Bermuda) Limited. Plaintiffs sought production of the document in connection with their claims for breach of contract, bad faith, fraud, and misrepresentation against several Ability entities related to the scope of coverage under a long-term care insurance policy. The court found the agreement to be relevant to the case because “reinsurance agreements and other agreements between the parties are relevant to the makeup of an insurance company and could lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” The court stated that any concerns regarding confidentiality should be addressed through protection orders. Burke v. Ability Insurance Company, Case No. CIV. 12-4051 (D.S.D. May 31, 2013).

This post written by Abigail Kortz.

See our disclaimer.