Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

TRUSTMARK NOT LIABLE FOR FAILING TO OBTAIN SETOFF IN LONG-RUNNING BATTLE OVER RETROCESSION AGREEMENTS

by

A Connecticut federal court put to bed a case which started out as a petition to confirm an arbitration award between reinsurer and retrocessionaire, but “transmogrified over the years to become the antithesis of the speedy, inexpensive dispute resolution process that the Federal Arbitration Act (‘FAA’) intends.”

Trustmark and Arrowood were parties to certain retrocession agreements. Trustmark disputed its payment obligations and submitted the dispute to arbitration. After the arbitration panel found that Trustmark was not responsible for some $9.4 million of disputed payments, Trustmark petitioned the court to confirm the award. The court confirmed the award in 2003. Some three years later, Arrowood moved for contempt, alleging Trustmark had an obligation arising from the Court’s order to pursue set offs on Arrowood’s behalf, and that it failed to do so with regard to certain insolvent insurers. Ultimately, the Court kicked the issue back to the panel, which found that Trustmark may have an obligation to pay Arrowood the $9.4 million, if it was unsuccessful in pursuing payment from the insurers, but that the factual issues that would determine that issue were beyond the scope of the arbitration. Thus, the parties went back to court, and built an evidentiary record on the issue of whether Trustmark adequately fulfilled its duties to pursue setoff on Arrowood’s behalf. Accepting the factual record, but not the recommendations of the magistrate who handled the hearings, the Court denied Arrowood’s motions for enforcement and contempt. Arrowood Indmenity Co. v. Trustmark Insurance Co., No 3:03-cv-01000 (USDC D. Conn. Mar. 29, 2013).

COURT AWARDS REINSURER REVENUE-SHARING UNDER BROKER AUTHORIZATION CONTRACT

by

Reinsurer Homeowner’s Choice Property and Casualty Insurance Company entered into a one-year broker authorization contract with Aon Benenfield. The contract contained a revenue-sharing agreement (“RSA”) under which Aon was to pay Homeowners a portion of the commissions it earned from placing Homeowners’ reinsurance. Homeowners declined to renew the contract when the one-year term expired. Aon refused to pay Homeowners revenue-sharing, claiming that the RSA was contingent upon Homeowners renewing the contract. Homeowners sued, seeking payment under the RSA. An Illinois federal court granted summary judgment in Homeowners’ favor, awarding Homeowners what it was due under the RSA. After holding that the RSA should be construed against drafter AON under Illinois law, the court found that there was no clear intent by the parties to make revenue-sharing payments contingent upon Homeowner’s renewal. Homeowners Choice, Inc. v. AON Benfield, Inc., Case No. 10 C 7700 (USDC N.D. Ill. Mar. 29, 2013).

This post written by Ben Seessel.

See our disclaimer.

BRITISH HIGH COURT FINDS FOR CEDENTS IN DISPUTE OVER COVERAGE FOR A DEFECTIVE KUWAITI OIL TANK

by

A newly-installed petroleum holding tank in Kuwait was discovered as defective in 2007, and initial repair/replacement estimate was approximately $28 million (US). At that time, the insurers notified the reinsurers, including Beazley, through their broker, Aon. AIG, the lead insurer, took the position that loss was excluded from coverage under a defective design exclusion. Ultimately, that coverage dispute appeared headed toward settlement, with AIG prepared to contribute some $4 million of a reduced $19 million total repair estimate. Beazley, AIG’s reinsurer, and other participating reinsurers, were not informed of these developments at the time. Upon learning about the negotiations later, the reinsurers notified the primary insurers of their objection that the settlement did not take into account the defective design exclusion, and that they did not consent to the settlement. They also pointed to the Claims Control Provision in the reinsurance contracts, which they alleged gave them full control over investigation and settlement. After hearing testimony, the Court held in favor of the primary insurers, finding that the reinsurers were sufficiently apprised of the settlement discussions, and the coverage dispute, as to have had meaningful control over the claim, and that the insurers did not breach that condition. Beazley Underwriting, Ltd. v. Al Ahleia Insurance Co., [2013] EWHC 677 (English High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench, Comm. Div., Mar. 27, 2013).

This post written by John Pitblado.

See our disclaimer.

EMERGING CAT RISK TRANSFER STRATEGIES

by

There are two new strategies being considered for catastrophe risk transfers. First, H.R. 1101, recently introduced in the House of Representatives, provides for a pre-funded public-private cat risk insurance “backstop” through privately funded reinsurance through state approved plans. The bill includes requirements for reinsurance coverages to be provided by the program. The goals of this program include the stabilization of the cat risk reinsurance market, the expansion of market capacity and the reduction of the dependence on the federal government for funding for responding to disasters.

Second, five Pacific island nations, Marshall Islands, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga and Vanuatu have become members of the Pacific Catastrophe Risk Insurance Pilot. Sponsored by the World Bank, with funding from Japan, the two year pilot program features cat risk modeling by AIR and parametric trigger coverage from four insurance companies, Swiss Re, Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance, Sompo Japan and Tokio Marine Nichido. The objective of the program appears to be to assess whether catastrophe insurance for hurricane, earthquake and tsunami risks might be workable feasible to provide immediate post-event liquidity to member countries. Although details are not presently available, this pilot may envision a program similar to that of the Caribbean Catastrophe Risk Insurance Facility.

This post written by Rollie Goss.

See our disclaimer.

ARBITRATION AWARD REVIEW ROUNDUP

by

Manifest Disregard/Exceeding Powers

Tivo, Inc. v. Goldwasser, Case No. 12-cv-07142 (USDC S.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2013) (denying motion to vacate award; granting motion to confirm award; panel did not exceed authority for allegedly basing award on theory not advanced by parties; panel’s patent licensing determinations not a “manifest disregard” of the law)

Giller v. Oracle USA, Inc., No. 12-895 (2d Cir. Feb 22, 2013) (affirming order granting motion to dismiss petition to vacate award in employment dispute; no grounds for vacatur for arbitrator’s interpretation of underlying contract; noting that “manifest disregard” still regarded as a “judicial gloss” on the FAA in the Second Circuit)

Peterson v. Macy’s, Case No. 10-cv-05119 (USDC E.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2013) (denying motion to vacate in pro se employment discrimination action; “since, inter alia, there is more than a ‘colorable justification’ for the arbitrator’s decision, the arbitration award was not rendered in manifest disregard of the law”)

Department of Professional & Financial Regulation v. Maine State Employees Association, Case No. 2013 ME 23 (Me. Feb. 28, 2013) (reversing and remanding for lower court to enter order denying motion to vacate award that reinstated employee; because the award “did not violate a public policy ‘affirmatively expressed or defined in the laws of Maine,’ the arbitrator did not exceed his powers, and the award is not subject to further judicial scrutiny on that basis”)

Choice of Law

Orbitcom, Inc. v. Qwest Communications Co., Case No. 12-cv-01639 (USDC D. Co. March 12, 2013) (granting motion to confirm award; denying motion to vacate; arbitrator did not exceed powers for 16-month delay of entry of final award; arbitrator correctly applied FAA for arbitration procedure, rather than New York law, notwithstanding New York substantive choice of law provision)

Abu Dhabi Investment Authority v. Citigroup, Inc., Case No. 12-cv-00283 (USDC S.D.N.Y. March 4, 2013) (denying petition to vacate award; no manifest disregard for New York choice of law; proceedings were not fundamentally unfair, notwithstanding tribunal’s denial of certain discovery)

Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Duffy v. Legal Aid Society, Case No. 12-cv-02152 (USDC S.D.N.Y. Feb. 12, 2013) (dismissing petitioner’s pro se action to vacate arbitration decision in employment dispute; employee lacked standing to challenge arbitration between union and employer; petitioner failed to argue that union did not provide fair representation; argument that arbitration decision was “confusing and contradictory” not grounds for vacatur)

Smith v. Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc., Case No. 06-cv-00829 (USDC M.D. Tenn. Feb. 8, 2013) (denying motion to vacate award; arbitrator’s award authorizing collective arbitration under Fair Labor Standards Act was an interim decision and vacatur was thus not ripe for judicial review)

Conclusory Challenge

Wanken v. Wanken, No. 12-10562 (5th Cir. Feb. 11, 2013) (affirming order denying motion for relief from judgment and confirming arbitration award; appellant failed to show that court ignored evidence allegedly showing that appellees gave perjured testimony and fraudulently procured the arbitration award)

Bailey Brake Farms, Inc. v. Trout, Case No. 2011-CA-00610 (Miss. Feb. 28, 2013) (reversing vacatur of arbitration award that set the value of shares under a stock buy-sell agreement; court’s order lacked any analysis or findings supporting grounds for vacatur, such as exceeding authority, “undue means,” or “unresolved issues”)

This post written by Michael Wolgin.

See our disclaimer.