Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

PARTIES STIPULATE TO DISMISSAL IN TIG V. CENTURY INDEMNITY SUIT

by

We previously reported on May 20, 2009 and June 25, 2009, about TIG Insurance Company’s suit against Century Indemnity Company, which alleged that Century breached its reinsurance agreement with TIG’s predecessor-in-interest, in connection with certain reinsured losses arising from underlying Honeywell asbestos suits. As previously reported, in April, 2009 the Court allowed TIG to amend its complaint to add breach of contract claims on two additional reinsurance contracts. In June, 2009, the Court denied Century’s motion to transfer venue from New York City to Philadelphia. All parties have now stipulated to dismissal with prejudice of all claims and cross-claims. TIG Ins. Co. v. Century Indemnity Co., No. 08-7322 (USDC S.D.N.Y. July 17, 2009).

This post written by John Pitblado.

COURT DENIES MOTION TO REOPEN CASE TO ADD A BAD FAITH CLAIM

by

The Tenth Circuit previously held that a revised state statute rendered the parties’ arbitration agreements enforceable, and, on remand, the Oklahoma district court compelled the parties to arbitrate their entire dispute. When Mid-Continent Casualty Company (“Mid-Continent”) moved to reopen the case for the purpose of filing an amended complaint adding a bad faith claim that Mid-Continent admitted it would not assert in the arbitrations, the court had to determine whether the arbitration agreements required Mid-Continent to arbitrate the bad faith claim. The court ultimately denied Mid-Continent’s motion, finding that the agreements used broad language and showed a clear intent to arbitrate all claims and that the tort claim, which was part of the same cause of action, fell within the broad arbitration clause. Mid-Continent Cas. Co. v. Gen. Reins. Corp., No. 06-0475 (N.D. Okla. Aug. 18, 2009).

This post written by Dan Crisp.

COURT DISMISSES CLAIMS AGAINST AIG FOR LACK OF STANDING

by

As reported in our March 27, 2008 and April 6, 2009 posts, The National Council on Compensation Insurance (“NCCI”), as attorney-in-fact for participating companies of the National Workers Compensation Reinsurance Pool (“the Pool”), brought claims against AIG and several of its subsidiaries (“AIG”). The suit generally alleged that payments made by AIG in resolution of charges against it by the New York Attorney General’s office arising from an allegedly fraudulent workers compensation premium accounting scheme, were insufficient to compensate Pool members for their losses.

AIG moved to dismiss the claims brought by NCCI, asserting (1) NCCI lacked standing to bring claims in its capacity as “attorney-in-fact;” (2) NCCI suffered no direct injury; and (3) NCCI did not have associational standing to bring the claims on behalf of individual companies. The Court agreed with AIG, finding that there was no transfer of title or assignment of interest of any affected rights in the agreement Pool members made with NCCI to act as “attorney-in-fact.” The Court also agreed that NCCI suffered no direct injury of its own, and that NCCI could not demonstrate associational standing because of the underlying conflicts between member companies. However, while the Court dismissed the claims, it noted that the litigation continues because individual pool members’ claims were “reassigned for relatedness” to the Court, and those Pool members now seek to bring those claims as a class action. National Council on Compensation Ins., Inc. v. American Int’l Group, Inc., No. 07-C-2898 (USDC N.D. Ill. August 20, 2009).

This post written by John Pitblado.

DISTRICT COURT DENIES AON’S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL; ADDS INTEREST TO DAMAGES

by

We have previously reported on the ongoing action between UNG and Aon for indemnity and contribution. On July 24, 2009, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania decided two post-trial motions arising out of a reinsurance agreement between United National Insurance Co. (“UNG” as plaintiff) and its Italian reinsurer Riunione Adriatica di Sicurta and UNG’s broker, Aon, Ltd. (defendant). In 1999 RAS commenced arbitration seeking to rescind the reinsurance agreement alleging it had been misled by one or both of the other parties. The arbitrator ruled in favor of RAS; UNG subsequently filed the present action for indemnity or contribution against Aon. The jury, applying Pennsylvania law, returned a $16.8 million dollar indemnification verdict for UNG. Following the trial, Aon filed a Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law or for a New Trial. UNG, for its part, filed a motion for a discretionary grant of interest on its awarded damages.

The district court denied Aon’s motion for a new trial, holding that it was reasonable for a jury to conclude that Aon was in the business of supplying information as a broker (and did so in connection with this reinsurance agreement). The court found no error in the jury’s conclusions, and found it inappropriate to order a new trial. Conversely, the court granted UNG's motion to alter or amend the judgment, finding that an interest award was appropriate under Pennsylvania law, and applied the interest grant to the entire award including attorneys’ fees and costs. The court granted UNG an additional $8.2 million in damages. United Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Aon Ltd., Case No. 04-539 (USDC E.D. Pa. July 24, 2009).

This post written by John Black.

SEC CHARGES AND SETTLES WITH FORMER AIG EXECUTIVES

by

On August 6, 2009, the SEC filed a Complaint in the Southern District of New York against former AIG Chairman and CEO Maurice “Hank” Greenberg and former Vice Chairman and CFO Howard Smith in connection with multiple accounting transaction allegedly inflating AIG’s financial statements between 2000 and 2005. The complaint charges Greenberg and Smith as control persons for AIG with numerous violations of securities laws including sham reinsurance transactions making it appear that AIG had legitimately increased its general loss reserves.

The Complaint charges that Greenberg and Smith were aware of and responsible for AIG’s misleading financial statements over the last several years. According to an SEC Release, both Greenberg and Smith, without admitting or denying the allegations in the complaint, consented to a judgment enjoining them from violating several securities laws under penalty of fine. Smith also consented to the entry of an SEC order that will suspend him from appearing or practicing before the Commission as an accountant. Both Greenberg and Smith entered into Consent Judgments to settle the charges, with Greenberg paying a file of $15 million and Smith a fine of $1.5 million. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Greenberg, Case No. 09-6939 (USDC S.D. N.Y. Aug. 6, 2009).

This post written by John Black.