Tony Cicchetti offers a Treaty Tip concerning arbitrator selection, and a recent case concerning the process for selecting the umpire for an arbitration in a matter involving Lloyd’s.
This post written by Tony Cicchetti.
NEW YORK PUBLICIZES DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO CREDIT FOR REINSURANCE REGS
In what appears to be one of the first, if not the first, state insurance department action in response to the Nonadmitted and Reinsurance Reform provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act (DFA), New York recently issued for comment a draft of proposed amendments to its regulations governing credit for reinsurance. As we discussed in Carlton Fields’s recent webinar on reinsurance aspects of DFA, New York was one of the states that previously had publicized proposed modifications, or enacted actual modifications, to their reinsurance laws to, among other things, address the perceived inequality confronted by non-U.S. reinsurers relating to collateral requirements for U.S. ceded business. In this regard, New York’s latest draft carries forward its previous proposal, which calls for a ratings-based framework for the determination of collateral requirements. Notably, however, several changes now embodied in New York’s proposal appear to respond directly to DFA.
For example, whereas it previously aimed to reach “authorized insurers,” New York under this draft amendment would expressly exclude from the provision’s reach situations where the cedent’s state of domicile (other than New York) recognizes credit for the ceded risk and is an NAIC-accredited state, or has financial solvency requirements substantially similar to the requirements for NAIC accreditation. In addition, those who participated in our webinar will recall that DFA includes provisions relating to the law that may govern a reinsurance contract. On this front, New York’s proposal states that the reinsurance contract must provide that disputes thereunder be governed by and construed in accordance with one of three options: (1) the laws of New York, (2) the laws of the cedent’s domicile, or (3) the laws of any state chosen by the cedent. New York’s draft proposal expressly provides that an agreement by the parties to arbitrate disputes is not overridden by such governing law provisions, consistent with DFA. The brief public comment period for New York’s draft proposed amendment ended on August 4th.
Absent further initiative by the NAIC to move forward with its previous proposal to “modernize” reinsurance regulation as it relates to collateral requirements, New York’s approach, if it goes into effect, could represent another piece in a patchwork whereby various states adopt their own modified collateral requirements within the parameters of DFA, while others maintain the status quo. We will continue to monitor such developments to keep our readers informed.
This post written by Tony Cicchetti.
FEDERAL JUDGE CONFIRMS REINSURANCE ARBITRATION AWARD
After arbitration between insurers Praetorian Insurance Co. (f/k/a Insurance Corporation of Hannover) and Clarendon Insurance Group Inc., and their reinsurer, American Constantine Insurance Co., the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted an unopposed petition to confirm the $7 million arbitration award. The award requires the reinsurer to place the amounts owed to the insurers either in escrow or in lines of credit for the insurers’ benefit, as collateral for the reinsurer’s share of reserves and incurred but not reported losses. Clarendon Am. Ins. Co. v. Am. Constantine Ins. Co., No. 10-2928 (USDC S.D.N.Y. June 8, 2010).
This post written by Michael Wolgin.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK BROADLY INTERPRETS U.S. SUPREME COURT’S STOLT-NIELSEN DECISION
On February 18, 2010, we reported on Jock v. Sterling Jewelers, Inc., in which the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York refused to vacate an arbitration decision that permitted class arbitration under an agreement that did not address whether that procedure was permitted. Sterling subsequently appealed the order to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, where it is currently pending. Thereafter, Sterling moved the Southern District of New York for an “indicative ruling” as to whether the court would reconsider its order based on the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent Stolt-Nielsen decision, which held that class arbitration is not permitted when the relevant arbitration clause is “silent” on class arbitration. The Southern District of New York concluded that, in light of Stolt-Nielsen, the court would now vacate the arbitration decision. The court explained that the determinative factor was the underlying arbitration agreement’s silence on whether class arbitration was permitted. The court was not persuaded by the plaintiffs’ attempts to distinguish this case from Stolt-Nielsen, including plaintiffs’ contention that the context of the agreement and sophistication of the parties in this case varied from the underlying agreement and parties in Stolt-Nielsen. Without an express or implied agreement for class arbitration, class arbitration would not be allowed. Jock v. Sterling Jewelers, Inc., No. 08- 2875 (USDC S.D.N.Y. July 27, 2010).
This post written by Michael Wolgin.
SPECIAL FOCUS: PRE-PLEADING SECURITY STATUTES: TYING THE HANDS OF THE UNWARY
In this Special Focus article, John Pitblado addresses the impact of pre-pleading security statutes on foreign insurers and reinsurers in litigation.
This post written by John Pitblado.