New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields
Changing an underlying insurance policy can create a reinsurance coverage gap; a “follow the fortunes” provision in the reinsurance agreement will not always close the gap. In a Treaty Tip, Tony Cicchetti describes a recent example of this.
This post written by Tony Cicchetti.
On April 21, 2009, we reported on a case in which reinsurance broker Aon Re prevailed at trial against reinsurer Reliastar Life. Reliastar claimed Aon failed to disclose the potential termination of the reinsurance pool’s retrocessional insurance by its retrocessionaires. An appellate court has now affirmed the judgment for Aon. The appellate court rejected Reliastar’s arguments for reversal, including the argument that the trial court erred by excluding the arbitration decision that ultimately terminated the pool’s retrocessional insurance. The arbitration decision was irrelevant and inadmissible hearsay because Aon was not a party to the arbitration. The court further reasoned that only the timing of when the retrocessionaires considered their agreement ineffective, and not the fact that an arbitration eventually terminated the agreement, was relevant to Reliastar’s claim. The arbitration decision could have mislead the jury by imputing “guilt by association” to Aon for the retrocessional insurance’s termination. Reliastar Life Insurance Co. v. Roger Smith & Aon Re, Inc., Case No. A-4484-08T2 (N.J. App. Div. Mar. 1, 2011).
This post written by Michael Wolgin.
The Florida Office of Insurance Regulation has approved two more Bermuda-based reinsurers for its collateral reduction program. Consent Orders have been entered approving Allied World Assurance Company, Ltd. and Tokio Millennium Re Ltd. The OIR also issued press releases announcing the agreements with Allied World and Tokio Millennium. Nine reinsurers have now been approved for this program.
This post written by Rollie Goss.
While the human toll of the still unfolding catastrophe in Japan rightfully is on the minds of many, there undoubtedly also will be an insurance toll as a result of this disaster. Those who have a professional interest in these events may find the Bermuda-based ARTEMIS alternative risk transfer/cat bond blog to be of interest. ARTEMIS has been posting daily updates on the potential insurance impact of this disaster.
This post written by Rollie Goss.
A federal district court granted summary judgment to insurer Lexington Insurance Company because insured Untied Health Care Group failed to comply with the notice provision in United’s insurance contract, prejudicing Lexington. The contract stated that United would give notice as soon as practicable of any claim where United reserved at or above 50% of its SIR of $3 million. United litigated a lawsuit filed in May 2001 for seven years, incurring nearly $20 million in legal fees and settling in May 2008 for $8.5 million. Untied did not notify Lexington of the claim in a distinct communication until April 2008, but argued that quarterly loss run reports in which the claim appeared as one line item was sufficient notice. The court agreed that such reports could constitute notice, but the reports United submitted inaccurately indicated that the claim had been settled within the SIR in 2006. Lexington was prejudiced because it was denied its contractual right to associate in the investigation, defense, or control of the claim. The court, in its order, mistakenly described Lexington as United’s reinsurer. United has moved for reconsideration, arguing that the court’s mistake in this regard materially affects the propriety of the court’s grant of summary judgment to Lexington because an insured should be afforded more protection against forfeiture of benefits than a reinsured. Lexington Insurance Co. v. United Health Group, Inc., Case No. 09-10504 (U.S.D.C. Feb. 15, 2011)
This post written by Ben Seessel.