Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

TWO ADDITIONAL BERMUDA REINSURERS ADMITTED UNDER FLORIDA’S REDUCED COLLATERAL REQUIREMENTS

by

Alterra Bermuda Limited and Arch Reinsurance Limited were both approved by Consent Order of the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation, to become the eleventh and twelfth reinsurers, respectively, admitted under Florida’s law allowing foreign reinsurers to post reduced collateral, upon demonstration that they are financially sound and highly rated by eligible ratings institutions. As set forth in the respective Orders, Alterra is a Bermuda-based reinsurer with capital and surplus in excess of $1.5 billion, and Arch is a Bermuda-based reinsurer with over $4.2 billion in capital and surplus. In re: Alterra Bermuda Limited, No. 115697-11-CO (Fla. O.I.R. March 23, 2011); In re: Arch Reinsurance Limited, No. 115570-11-CO (Fla. O.I.R. March 31, 2011).

This post written by John Pitblado.

COURT COMPELS FINRA ARBITRATION OF EMPLOYMENT DISPUTE

by

Kevin Imhoff left his job as a broker for Primerica, for whom he sold various securities and insurance products, to go work for a competitor. He sued Primerica in state court, alleging that they harmed his relationship with his clients and with AIG (one of the insurance companies whose products he sold), as a result of various communications Primerica sent announcing his departure. Primerica filed a petition in federal court seeking to compel arbitration under FINRA. Imhoff conceded he agreed to arbitrate certain disputes, as set forth in his FINRA registration, but that the dispute pertaining to his sale of insurance products was exempt from arbitration by FINRA Rule 13200. The Court rejected this claim, narrowly construing Rule 13200’s exception for “insurance related claims,” which states that “disputes arising out of insurance business activities of a member that is also an insurance company are not required to be arbitrated under FINRA,” and finding that it does not encompass employment disputes, but rather only “intrinsically insurance” claims. The Court compelled arbitration of all claims. PFS Investments, Inc. v. Imhoff, No. 11-10142 (USDC E.D. Mich. March 25, 2011).

This post written by John Pitblado.

COURT STANDS BY “NERVE CENTER” DETERMINATION IN REINSURANCE DISPUTE

by

On January 27, 2011, we reported on a court’s application of the “nerve center” test to dismiss for lack of diversity of citizenship a case seeking the return of excess reinsurance deposit. The insurer alleged its domicile in the complaint, but failed to allege the location of its principal place of business. The nerve center was the “single place” where direction, control and coordination originated. The court earlier found that to be the state where the insurer’s president, secretary, and director were located, and not the state where most of the insurer’s board of directors and board meetings were located. The court has now denied the plaintiff’s motion to reconsider that finding, holding that plaintiff’s motion was “nothing more than a request for a second bite at the apple.” Health Facilities of California Mutual Insurance Co., Inc. v. British American Insurance Group, Ltd., Case No. CV 10-3736 (USDC C.D. Cal. April 5, 2011).

This post written by Michael Wolgin.

REINSURANCE DISPUTE NOT CORE PROCEEDING IN BANKRUPTCY ACTION

by

The Delaware federal district court issued an order directing the district’s bankruptcy court to determine whether an adversary proceeding constituted a “core” proceeding. PRS Insurance Group commenced a chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings in 2001. Thereafter, the trustee appointed filed suit in Ohio against Westchester Fire Insurance Company and ACE INA Holding for breach of two reinsurance agreements and bad faith refusal to pay claims. After the case was transferred to the Delaware federal district court, that court granted the trustee’s request to refer the case to bankruptcy court, but only to determine whether the adversary proceeding constituted a core proceeding. The bankruptcy court concluded that the trustee’s action was not a core proceeding because the case was not under the court’s jurisdiction “under” title 11 or “arising under” title 11. Rather, the reinsurance dispute was separate from the bankruptcy proceeding. Finally, the reinsurance action did not fall under the court’s “arising in” jurisdiction because it did not involve a suit that could arise only in the context of a bankruptcy case. In re PRS Insurance Group, Inc., Case No 00-4070 (Bankr. D. Del. Mar. 30, 2011).

This post written by John Black.

NEW YORK HIGH COURT HOLDS CHOICE OF LAW SHOULD BE EMPLOYED FOR EACH POLICY IN MIDLAND INSURANCE LIQUIDATION PROCEEDINGS

by

On March 17, 2010 we reported on the decision of a New York intermediate appellate court to apply New York law to disallowed claims under insurance policies issued by Midland Insurance Company, an insolvent multiline insurer placed into liquidation in New York. The appellate court based its decision, in part, on the New York “paramount state interest” of ensuring that distributions from an insolvent insurer are made “in an equitable manner.” The appellate court had reversed the trial court, which had found that New York’s standard choice of law analysis for contracts, known as a “grouping of contacts” or “center of gravity” test, should be conducted to determine which laws to apply to each Midland policy. The New York Court of Appeals has now reversed the appellate court and reinstated the trial court’s decision. The high court explained that because the claims of the policyholders “derive from the insurance policies issued by Midland prior to its insolvency,” choice of law analysis for each policy should be employed. In re Liquidation of Midland Insurance Co., 2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 02716 (N.Y. April 5, 2011).

This post written by Michael Wolgin.