Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

RECENT REPORTS PROVIDE COMPREHENSIVE VIEW OF REINSURANCE INDUSTRY

by

Readers may obtain a fairly comprehensive view of the global reinsurance industry from reading three reports:

This post written by Rollie Goss.

UK COURT DETERMINES THAT INSURED CAN GIVE EFFECTIVE NOTICE OF POTENTIAL CLAIMS FOR PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE BY APPRISING INSURER OF GENERAL CIRCUMSTANCES THAT MIGHT LEAD TO SUCH CLAIMS

by

In this action for declaratory relief, the UK Court of Appeal issued a judgment on the construction and application of notification provisions in a claims made policy, which may be of interest in interpreting similar provisions in reinsurance agreements. The court held that where a professional indemnity insurance policy required the insured to notify the insurers of potential claims against the insured “as soon as practicable,” the insured could satisfy this requirement by notifying the underwriters of circumstances which might give rise to claims for professional negligence, if made within the insured period, even if the notification of the claim itself was not given until after the policy period. However, notification of such circumstances given after the policy expired relating to new potential claims was not effective.

The essential issue was whether Kidsons gave the underwriters effective notification of the circumstances that might lead to subsequent claims for professional negligence within the policy period. The policy provided no details as to how a notification was to be made, other than that it must be in writing and given as soon as practicable after awareness of circumstances which might give rise to a claim. This was a factual issue, requiring an analysis of various letters and presentations. The court held that the “as soon as reasonably practicable” language was, in effect, a condition precedent in the claims-made policy. This result was not undone by another policy provision stating that “Where the assured’s breach of or non-compliance with any conditions of this Insurance has resulted in prejudice to the handling or settlement of any loss or claim the indemnity afforded . . . shall be reduced to such sum as in the underwriters’ opinion would have been payable by them in the absence of such prejudice.” Although the provision referred to “any conditions of this Insurance,” it did not in terms refer to – and therefore modify – conditions precedent. One Justice dissented, agreeing with the judge below that the letter relied upon as providing notice of the circumstances was incapable of constituting an effective notification because it was too nebulous. HLB Kidsons v. Lloyd’s Underwriters [2008] EWCA Civ 1206 (Ct. App. Nov. 5, 2008).

This post written by Brian Perryman.

COURTS CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARDS WITH SOME DISCUSSION OF MANIFEST DISREGARD OF LAW DOCTRINE

by

Courts have continued (with one exception) to confirm arbitration awards, with some discussion of the manifest disregard of law doctrine.

This post written by Rollie Goss.

REN RE FOUNDER AND FORMER CEO LIABLE FOR SECURITIES FRAUD

by

The most recent development in the saga of Ren Re’s finite reinsurance story is a civil enforcement action by the SEC alleging federal securities fraud against Ren Re’s founder and former CEO and Chairman, James Stanard. After a bench trial, the court entered a detailed set of findings and conclusions, concluding that the accounting for one of the reinsurance transactions at issue had been fraudulent. The court found Stanard liable for violations of the anti-fraud provisions of Securities Act Section 17(a) and Exchange Act Section 10(b). The court also determined that Stanard violated Exchange Act Rule 13(a)-14, Rule 13b2-1 (Falsification of Accounting Records), Rule 13b2-2, 13(b)(5) and found Stanard liable for aiding and abetting liability for the above violations.

The court entered a final judgment permanently enjoining Stanard from future violations of the federal securities laws but did not bar him from serving as an officer or director of a public company in the future. The court ordered Stanard to pay $100,000 as a civil penalty. SEC v. Standard, Merritt & Cash, Case No. 06-7736 (USDC S.D.N.Y. Jan. 27, 2009).

This post written by John Black.

COURT RULES ON DIRECT ACTION ISSUES RELATING TO TWO LEVEL REINSURANCE RELATIONSHIPS

by

Guarantee Trust Life Insurance Company (“GTL”) sells health insurance to college students, and obtained reinsurance from First Student Programs, LLC (“FSP”). The reinsurance agreement required that FSP obtain reinsurance, and it purportedly reached an agreement to reinsure its risks with American United Life Insurance Company (AUL), which also provided excess reinsurance directly to GTL. When AUL failed to pay claims, GLT sued FSP for breach of the reinsurance requirement of their agreement, and FSP filed a third-party complaint against AUL. AUL moved to dismiss. In an earlier dispute between GTL and AUL, which was arbitrated, an arbitrator found that AUL was not contractually bound to provide excess reinsurance to GTL. AUL contended that this prior adjudication precluded FSP’s claim against it based upon the doctrine of res judicata.

Applying Pennsylvania law, the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted AUL's motion to dismiss in part, and denied it without prejudice in part. The court determined that FSP's breach of contract action should not be dismissed because it was not clear, as a matter of law, that FSP was acting merely as an agent for GTL when it allegedly contracted with AUL so the rule that agents may not sue for contracts entered into on behalf of a principal should not be applied here. The court further held that FSP sufficiently pleaded a claim for promissory estoppel but applied Pennsylvania's “gist of the action” doctrine to dismiss the fraud claim. The court surmised that the fraud claim was inextricably tied to the breach of contract claim so it was barred as a matter of law under the doctrine. The court also dismissed the indemnification and contribution claims as they were expressly conditioned upon a finding that FSP is liable to GTL, and those parties had settled the matter as between them.

Finding that the third party excess reinsurance agreement was not actually intended to benefit FSP, the court dismissed FSP's Third-Party Beneficiary claim. AUL’s res judicata defense remains pending. Guarantee Trust Life Ins. Co. v. First Student Programs, LLC, Case No. 05-1261 (USDC N.D.Ill. Jan. 28, 2009).

This post written by John Black.