Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

BRITISH COURT DISAGREES WITH PENNSYLVANIA COURT ON JURISDICTION AND FORUM, KEEPING ALIVE SEPARATE CASES PROCEEDING ON THE SAME INSURANCE POLICIES IN BRITISH AND U.S. COURTS

by

Howden North America, Inc., a subsidiary of the Howden Group, Ltd. (“HNA”), manufactures equipment for the petrochemical, steel, mining, and cement production industries. HNA faces liability for asbestos exposure which allegedly caused personal injuries, from the 1960s through the 1990s. HNA looked to its insurers, which resulted in dispute with certain of its excess liability carriers. In 2009, HNA brought suit in Pennsylvania federal district court, seeking declaration as to the construction of the insurance policies at issue. In 2011, HNA joined a separate coverage action also pending in Pennsylvania and implicating some of the same policies and coverage layers, brought by a different primary policy holder. Meanwhile, in 2010, one of the excess carriers brought suit in the London High Court of Justice, seeking declarations involving some of the same policies at issue in the two Pennsylvania actions. In June 2012, the Pennsylvania court held, among other things, that English law does not apply, and denied motions to dismiss by the foreign defendants under the premise of forum non conveniens.

The British court has now held that English law governs with respect to one subset of the policies at issue, and that it is the appropriate court to hear those claims. It noted that because the British case is further along in terms of discovery, that it could be tried sooner and more efficiently. The British court also considered the problem of inconsistent judgments in the parallel proceedings, but held that “this is a position which the court in each country must accept.” As to the other subset of policies, the British Court declined to exercise jurisdiction, based on a lack of justiciability. Ace European, Ltd. v. Howden Group. Ltd., [2012] EWHC 2427 (High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Commercial Court Sept. 17, 2012).

This post written by John Pitblado.

See our disclaimer.

CITING FOLLOW-THE-FORTUNES CLAUSE, COURT ORDERS REINSURER TO PAY FOR SETTLEMENT OF INSURED’S BAD FAITH CASE

by

Arrowood issued a liability policy insuring Greenwood Terrace, a nursing home and rehab center which was sued following the death of one of its residents, Joseph Mark. Under the parties’ reinsurance treaty, defendant Assurecare was responsible for the first $250,000 of Arrowood’s net liability and a percentage of loss adjustment expenses. Arrowood contributed $1,000,000, the policy limits, to a $1,750,000 settlement reached between Mark and its insured Greenwood Terrace. After the Mark settlement, Greenwood Terrace sued Arrowood for breach of contract, alleging that Arrowood should have paid a greater portion of the settlement because the Mark lawsuit involved more than one “medical incident” and that Arrowood had acted in bad faith. Arrowood settled with Greenwood Terrace for $325,000.

Assurecare paid Arrowood $250,000 plus a portion of loss adjustment expenses associated with the settlement of the Mark litigation. It refused, however, to pay for any portion of the settlement of the subsequent suit by Greenwood Terrace against Arrowood. Arrowood sued Assurecare, alleging breach of contract and seeking a declaratory judgment that it was entitled to payment for the Greenwood Terrace settlement, including the first $250,000 of net liability. The district court granted Arrowood’s motion for summary judgment holding that the Greenwood Terrace settlement constituted a covered “loss settlement” under the parties’ treaty, an interpretation that the court stated was supported by the treaty’s follow-the-fortunes clause. Arrowood Indemnity Co. v. Assurecare Corp., Case No. 11 CV 5206 (USDC N.D. Ill. Sept. 19, 2012).

This post written by Ben Seessel.

See our disclaimer.

COURT GRANTS PETITION TO CONFIRM FOREIGN ARBITRAL AWARDS, DENIES MOTION TO SEAL

by

Century Indemnity Company brought a petition to confirm three foreign arbitral awards it secured against AXA Belgium. AXA cross-petitioned to vacate the awards. Both parties filed motions to seal certain documents submitted to the court in light of a confidentiality agreement covering the arbitrations. The parties’ dispute centered on claimed underpayments by AXA, and alleged offsets AXA claimed it was entitled to, which it claimed negated amounts owed to Century under certain reinsurance treaties. Century initiated multiple arbitrations arising throughout the history of the parties’ payment disputes, which arbitrations were ultimately consolidated. The consolidated arbitration hearing took place in 2011. In February 2012, the panel rendered a decision favorable to Century, including a bad faith finding against AXA which resulted in an order of $250,000, or the amount of Century’s fees and costs, whichever was lesser. AXA challenged the award under the FAA, but the Court held that it failed to demonstrate the panel exceeded its authority under the submission, or that its decision was in manifest disregard of the law. The Court also addressed both parties’ motion to seal the record, finding neither demonstrated sufficient bases to seal, given the strong presumption in favor of public access to court files. Century Indemnity Co. v. AXA Belgium, No. 11 Civ. 7263 (USDC S.D.N.Y. Sept. 24, 2012).

This post written by John Pitblado.

See our disclaimer.

RETROCESSIONAIRE’S RESCISSION COUNTERCLAIM THAT REINSURER FAILED TO ACT IN UTMOST GOOD FAITH SURVIVES SUMMARY JUDGMENT

by

Munich Re sued retrocessionaire ANICO based on ANICO’s refusal to pay over $4 million allegedly due under excess loss policies issued to Munich Re to provide retrocessional cover on Munich Re’s reinsurance of Everest National’s workers compensation program. After discovery closed, ANICO counterclaimed for rescission, alleging that facts revealed in discovery demonstrated that Munich Re failed to abide by its duty of utmost good faith or uberrimae fidei by failing to disclose its own internal loss calculations that ANICO claimed would have been material to ANICO’s decision to issue the retrocessional policies. The parties cross-moved for summary judgment on ANICO’s counterclaim for rescission and Munich Re moved for summary judgment on aspects of its breach of contract and declaratory judgment claims.

The federal district court denied the parties’ cross-motion on ANICO’s rescission counterclaim, holding that there were issues of fact regarding whether ANICO reasonably would have considered Munich Re’s internal loss calculations material and, further, whether Munich Re should have known that ANICO would have deemed this information material. With respect to Munich Re’s breach of contract claim, the court rejected ANICO’s argument that Munich Re’s alleged failure to provide timely notice precluded recovery, finding that timely notice was not required under the parties’ agreements and, further, that ANICO could show no prejudice. The court granted Munich Re summary judgment with respect to its interpretation of the agreements’ retention provisions. As none of these decisions entirely disposed of the case, it remains pending in federal district court. Munich Reinsurance America, Inc. v. American National Insurance Co., Case No. 09-6435 (USDC D.N.J. Sept, 28, 2012).

This post written by Ben Seessel.

See our disclaimer.

NEW “IRAN THREAT REDUCTION ACT” IMPLICATES INSURANCE INDUSTRY

by

On August 10, 2012, President Obama signed The Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act (H.R. 1905) into law. Among other provisions, the Act contains provisions of particular import to the insurance industry, including bans on insuring or reinsuring: (1) vessels transporting oil from Iran if the insurer should have known that the vessel would be used for this purpose; (2) vessels transporting goods that could be used towards the proliferation of terrorism or weapons of mass destruction; (3) the National Iranian Oil Company or the National Iranian Tanker Company; and (4) barter transactions involving Iranian oil sales. Among other “safe harbour” provisions, the insurer may defend against violations of the Act (with the exception of (2) above), if it conducted due diligence in establishing and enforcing procedures to avoid violating the Act.

This post written by Michael Wolgin.

See our disclaimer.