Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

COURT REVERSED FOR STRAYING FROM ARBITRATION AGREEMENT DESPITE “LAPSE” IN ARBITRATOR SELECTION PROCESS

by

In a three-way dispute between Exxon, BP, and a provider of drilling services over the alleged breach of an assignment agreement, a federal appeals court reversed based on the lower court’s improper resolution of a “lapse” in the parties’ ineffective two-party arbitrator selection procedures. The agreement provided that the dispute would be arbitrated before three arbitrators appointed in accordance with the rules of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1990. ACA’s procedures, however, address a two-party dispute, in which each party selects an arbitrator, with the third selected by the arbitrators themselves.

When the three-way dispute arose in this case, and the parties could not agree on how the two-party arbitration selection process could be implemented, suit was filed in federal court under the New York Convention and the FAA. The court found that the arbitration agreement procedure reached a “mechanical breakdown” or “lapse,” and that it would order the appointment of five arbitrators. While the appellate court agreed with the district court’s determination that it was entitled to intervene under the FAA, it reversed the process that the district court instituted, holding that the FAA limited the court to enforce the underlying arbitration agreement, which in this case provided for only three arbitrators. On remand, the appellate court recommended a procedure for the district court to “consider” to achieve the equitable appointment of three arbitrators in a three-party dispute context. BP Exploration Libya Ltd. v. Exxonmobil Libya Ltd., No. 11-20547 (5th Cir. July 30, 2012).

This post written by Michael Wolgin.

See our disclaimer.

NAIC PUBLISHES EXPOSURE DRAFT OF CAPTIVES WHITE PAPER

by

We previously reported on the NAIC’s inquiry into the potentially abusive use of captives to avoid certain accounting rules. As part of that inquiry, the NAIC’s Financial Condition (E) Committee’s Captives and Special Purpose Vehicle Use Subgroup has called for comments on its white paper titled Captives and Special Purpose Vehicles. Comments are due by the close of business on November 16, 2012. The white paper describes some disagreement among different states on issues relating to captives. The end of the comment period is shortly before the NAIC’s scheduled fall meeting.

This post written by Rollie Goss.

See our disclaimer.

FEDERAL COURT CONFIRMS ARBITRATION AWARD IN DISPUTE BETWEEN REINSURER AND INSURERS BUT ORDERS ARBITRATION AWARD UNSEALED

by

Reinsurer AXA and insurers New Hampshire Insurance Company, American Home Insurance Company, and National Union Fire Insurance Company arbitrated a dispute over reinsurance coverage of primary policies that had been underwritten by AIG’s Energy Division in 1996/1997 and 1997/1998. The arbitration was only commenced after years of contentious litigation over coverage-related issues. The arbitration panel issued an award, largely in favor of AXA. AXA petitioned to have the arbitration award confirmed under the FAA. The insurers stipulated to the award’s confirmation, but both sides asked the court to keep the award out of the public court record. When the award was filed with the Petition to confirm the award, the court granted the request of the parties to seal the award. In the order confirming the award, however, the court denied the request to keep the award sealed, without any discussion of the reasons for its change of position, and directed the clerk to unseal the award, which is now public. In re AXA Versicherung AG, Case No. 12-6009 (USDC S.D.N.Y. Sept. 6, 2012).

This post written by Ben Seessel.
See our disclaimer.

COURT DECLINES APPLICATION FOR PRE-AWARD SECURITY IN REINSURANCE ARBITRATION

by

The defendant was the managing general agent for a book of reinsurance business for the plaintiff reinsurer. The parties disputed commission amounts owed by defendant to the plaintiff. Plaintiff initiated an arbitration seeking recoupment of approximately $2 million in commissions it claimed it was owed, as well as approximately $70,000 in other expenses arising from the dispute. An interim order in the arbitration established that plaintiff was owed the $70,000 portion of the claim, and the parties agreed to resolve the larger portion later, as they needed information to develop the claim. In the meantime, the plaintiff filed an application in district court seeking security from the defendant, pursuant to a Texas statute allowing for the posting of security in arbitrations. It sought security for the $70,000 already established by the interim award, as well as the $2 million it continued to seek in the arbitration. The Court denied both, arguing that plaintiff had not made out a case that is was likely to secure the $2 million award it sought, and that there was no basis to require security for the “de minimis” $70,000. General Fidelity Insurance Co. v. WFT Inc., 3-11-CV-0448 (USDC N.D. Tex. Oct. 15, 2012).

This post written by John Pitblado.

See our disclaimer.

PHILIPPINE INSURER IS NOT ENTITLED TO STAY OF LONDON REINSURERS’ DECLARATORY COVERAGE ACTION REGARDING VESSEL SINKING

by

A consortium of London reinsurers are seeking a declaration from an English court regarding their duty to indemnify Philippine insurer Oriental Insurance Company for losses resulting from the sinking of a cargo passenger ship during Typhoon Frank in 2008. The sinking, which caused widespread outrage in the Philippines due to the vessel’s failure to heed storm warnings resulted in over 500 deaths and significant property loss. The reinsurance contract contained a “Typhoon Warranty,” which voided the policy if an otherwise covered vessel left port during a typhoon or storm warning. Oriental’s underlying policy with the ship owner contained a virtually identical clause. Oriental, facing massive claims and litigation in the Philippines, sought a stay of the proceedings initiated by the British reinsurers, arguing that their action was premature given the reinsurance contract’s “follow the fortunes” clause and significant unresolved claims pending in the Philippine courts. The lower court dismissed Oriental’s application for a stay, holding that such relief should only be granted in “rare and compelling circumstances,” which were not present. The appellate court dismissed the appeal with “little enthusiasm,” finding the lower court’s decision correct but noting its apparent “unfairness.” In particular, as one justice noted, the reinsurers’ action might force Oriental to assert in the London courts that the “Typhoon Warranty” did not apply, a position diametrically opposed to the one it would wish to take in defending ongoing and imminent coverage suits in the Philippines. Amlin Corp. Member Ltd. v. Oriental Assurance Corp., [2012] EWCA Civ. 1341 (Royal Courts of Justice, Queen Bench Division, Commercial Court Oct. 17, 2012).

This post written by Ben Seessel.
See our disclaimer.