Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL GRANTED FOR CLASS SETTLEMENT INVOLVING ALLEGED UNDERREPORTING OF WORKERS COMPENSATION PREMIUMS

by

We have previously reported on the class action lawsuit by members of the National Worker’s Compensation Reinsurance Pool (the “Pool”) against AIG for alleged “fraudulent underreporting of workers compensation premiums for the purpose of reducing its share of the residual workers compensation market – and consequently increasing the residual market costs of the other members of the [Pool].” The amount allegedly underreported by AIG was estimated at approximately $2.1 billion. Subject to “some minor modifications” to the class notice and settlement agreement, the district court has granted preliminarily approval to a class settlement between AIG and certain members of the Pool that intervened in the case. Factors militating in favor of settlement approval included: that the strength of plaintiffs’ case compared to the settlement offer was “within a reasonable range,” that the likely complexity, length and expense of trial weighed heavily in favor of the settlement’s fairness, and that the amount of opposition to the settlement was minimal thus far. The highlights of the settlement include A $450 million settlement award to the class, $146 million in penalties, back taxes, and assessments payable to certain states, and a reformation of AIG’s methodology for reporting workers compensation premiums. The settlement has also been approved by the insurance commissioners of all 50 states and the District of Columbia. American International Group, Inc. v. ACE INA Holdings, Inc., Case No. 07-02898 (USDC N.D. Ill. July 26, 2011).

This post written by Michael Wolgin.

NO MANIFEST DISREGARD OF THE LAW FOR AWARD REINSTATING UNION EMPLOYEE WHO VIOLATED COMPANY RULES

by

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed the denial of a motion to vacate an arbitration award that reinstated a union-member employee who had been terminated by the employer ostensibly for “just cause.” In holding that the arbitrator did not commit a “manifest disregard of the law” and that the award drew its essence from the governing collective bargaining agreement, the court found that the arbitrator could conclude that: (1) the employee was not terminated for “just cause,” an undefined term in the CBA, notwithstanding the employee’s violation of company rules; (2) the violation was “forgivable,” and (3) the employee should be placed on probation (a “last chance agreement”), notwithstanding that such a remedy was not provided in the CBA. Chevron Mining Inc. v. United Mine Workers of America Local 1307, No. 10-8074 (10th Cir. Aug. 12, 2011).

This post written by Michael Wolgin.

ARBITRATOR’S UNDISCLOSED RELATIONSHIP WITH COUNSEL RESULTS IN VACATION OF AWARD

by

Recently, a Texas Court of Appeals issued a ruling on an appeal from an order confirming a $22 million arbitration award in a partnership dispute. The appellants argued on appeal that their rights were prejudiced by the evident partiality of the arbitrator because the arbitrator failed to disclose his personal and professional relationship with appellee’s counsel. The court, assessing all contacts between the individuals, found this argument persuasive, noting that the standard for disclosing such relationships reflects the determination that courts should not involve themselves in evaluations of partiality that are better left to the parties. The court found that the relationship between the arbitrator (a US Magistrate Judge) and the appellee’s counsel (a former US District Court clerk) stretched for years and that the social relationship had business overtones. Accordingly, the court concluded that the arbitrator’s duty of disclosure had been triggered and the failure to disclose the relationship constituted evident partiality. The court reversed the confirmation award and judgment, vacated the award, and remanded for further proceedings. Karlseng v. Cooke, No. 05-09-01002 (Tex. Ct. App. June 28, 2011).

This post written by John Black.

UK FSA ASSESSES WILLIS LIMITED LARGEST BRIBERY FINE EVER

by

The UK Financial Services Authority handed down its largest ever fine relating to bribery in late July. The FSA issued a final notice fining Willis Limited £6.895 for failures in its anti-bribery and corruption systems and controls, concluding that Willis’ systems allowed for an unacceptable level of risk that overseas third party payments could be used for corrupt purposes. Over the course of 4 years, Willis made a series of payments to overseas third parties to assist in winning business from overseas clients. The FSA, however, also concluded that the misconduct on the part of Willis was not deliberate or reckless. Willis was given 14 days from the issuance of the penalty to remit payment. FINANCIAL SERVICES AUTHORITY, FSA/PN/066/2011 (U.K. July 21, 2011).

This post written by John Black.

CALIFORNIA BILL REVISES PROVISIONS GOVERNING SURPLUS LINES COVERAGE TO CONFORM TO DODD-FRANK

by

Approved by Governor Jerry Brown on July 13, 2011, California Assembly Bill 315 significantly changes provisions of the California Insurance Code governing surplus lines coverage to make them consistent with the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010. Certain of the Bill’s provisions became operative on July 21, 2011. The Bill sets forth detailed legislation altering the manner in which surplus lines brokers and non-admitted insurers are governed. Among other provisions, the Bill creates rules regulating the advertising, marketing, and sales of surplus lines coverage, capital requirements for non-admitted insurers, and the taxation of surplus line insurance. The Bill also gives the Commissioner of Insurance the authority to create an advisory organization to monitor surplus lines activity. Assembly Bill No. 315, Ch. 83 (Cal. 2011).

This post written by Ben Seessel.