Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

UK COMMERCIAL COURT DENIES BROKER’S APPLICATION TO WITHDRAW ADMISSIONS REGARDING MARKET ISSUES

by

We previously reported on problems in the London Personal Accident Reinsurance market in the 1990s, including an extensive Commercial Court opinion involving Sphere Drake Insurance Limited and its broker, Stirling Cooke Brown. In the present action, American Reliable Insurance Company, one of the participants in that market, sued its reinsurance broker in the UK Commercial Court, seeking to recover damages. Prior to the case management conference, after admitting certain factual findings made by the court in the prior Sphere Drake case, the defendant broker, Willis Limited (“Willis”), sought to withdraw some of those admissions, including admissions regarding the nature of the Personal Accident Reinsurance market. Willis had also been sued by another one of its former clients, CNA Insurance Company Limited, and had made admissions in that case which were inconsistent with those it had made in the American Reliable case.

The Court denied Willis’ application to withdraw its admissions. In support of the denial, the Court explained that Willis neither presented new evidence nor made any positive challenges to the prior admissions. This opinion demonstrates some of the substantial differences between civil case management in US and UK courts. American Reliable Insurance Company v. Willis Limited [2008] EWHC 2677 (Comm. Oct. 24, 2008) (Note: Carlton Fields has represented American Reliable Insurance Company in disputes in the Personal Accident Reinsurance market).

This post written by Dan Crisp.

HAWAII DEPARTMENT PROPOSES AMENDMENTS TO ITS DISCLOSURE OF MATERIAL TRANSACTIONS REGULATION

by

The Hawaii Insurance Department has proposed two amendments to its Disclosure of Material Transactions regulation in chapter 16-170, Hawaii Administrative Rules. The amendments include a definition of “material transaction” as used in chapter 16-170 and requiring material new ceded reinsurance agreements affecting in force life insurance business as specified in section 16-170-3 to be subject to the reporting requirements of section 16-170-1.

This post written by Dan Crisp.

NAIC ADOPTS REINSURANCE REGULATORY MODERNIZATION FRAMEWORK PROPOSAL

by

This past weekend, at its Winter Meeting, the NAIC adopted the Reinsurance Regulatory Modernization Framework proposal that has been under consideration for some time. The Florida and New York Insurance Departments, which had adopted their own proposals, announced that they would either withdraw or modify their newly-adopted proposals to be consistent with the NAIC's action. For further details, view a press release from the NAIC or a Carlton Fields Memorandum outlining the relevant issues. A prior version of this Memorandum was posted on this blog previously, and the changes resulting from the NAIC's recent action are highlighted in red for easy identification.

This post written by Rollie Goss.

SECOND CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS STRICTLY CONSTRUES FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT’S SUBPOENA POWER PERTAINING TO NON-PARTIES

by

Life Settlements Corp. d/b/a Peachtree Life Settlements (“Peachtree”) entered into a contingent cost insurance contract with Syndicate 102 at Lloyd’s of London (“Syndicate 102”) to insure against the risk that living insureds under life policies which Peachtree purchased might live past his or her projected life expectancy. Some of the purchased life policies were placed by Peachtree with Life Receivables Trust (the “Trust”), an entity created by Peachtree for the express purpose of holding the policies. Syndicate 102 declined a claim by Peachtree after an insured outlived his life expectancy, asserting that the Trust made fraudulent misrepresentations regarding the date on which the underlying life policy was purchased, and also regarding the insured’s life expectancy. Syndicate 102 and the Trust arbitrated the dispute under the parties’ agreement, which commanded arbitration under American Arbitration Association rules.

After Syndicate 102 unsuccessfully attempted to join Peachtree as a party to the arbitration (Peachtree was also a party to the contract containing the arbitration agreement), it successfully sought the arbitrators’ issuance of subpoenas commanding Peachtree to produce certain documents that the Trust was unable to obtain from Peachtree, due to Peachtree’s expressed position that it was not a party to the arbitration, and the arbitrators thus had no jurisdiction to issue orders binding on Peachtree. After Peachtree refused to comply with the subpoenas, Syndicate 102 filed an action in the federal district court seeking to compel compliance. The court ordered Peachtree to comply. Peachtree appealed, and the Second Circuit held – noting a split among the circuits – that the plain language of §7 of the Federal Arbitration Act does not authorize pre-hearing discovery from non-parties, and that a non-party may only be compelled to produce documents or testimony in conjunction with an appearance before the arbitral panel. The Court thus reversed the district court’s ruling ordering Peachtree to comply with the subpoenas. Life Settlements Corporation d/b/a Peachtree Life Settlements v. Syndicate 102 at Lloyd’s of London, No. 07-1197-cv (2d. Cir. Nov. 25, 2008).

This post written by John Pitblado.

COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMS TRIAL COURT’S CHALLENGED “ENFORCEMENT” OF ARBITRATION AWARD

by

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the judgment of a federal district court which enforced an arbitration award between plaintiff, Qorvis Communications, LLC (“Qorvis”) and defendant, Christopher S. Wilson. Wilson and Qorvis were parties to an employment contract whereby Wilson agreed to provide certain research, polling, and political consulting services to Qorvis in his position as a public affairs executive, and CEO of the company’s Research Strategies Division (“RSD”). As part of the employment contract, Wilson agreed that he would devote his “full time, attention, skill and energy” to developing and building Qorvis’s RSD. The agreement also obligated Wilson not to solicit Qorvis clients for his own account during his employment and for eighteen months thereafter. Qorvis later alleged that Wilson did, in fact, solicit Qorvis clients for his own account during his employment and misappropriated certain confidential trade secrets, all to Qorvis’s financial detriment. Qorvis invoked the agreement’s arbitration provision as a result of the dispute.

Without objection, the parties proceeded to arbitration, after which the arbitrator ruled on all of Qorvis’s claims, as well as counterclaims which Wilson had raised during the course of the proceeding. The arbitrator awarded Qorvis $366,037.72, plus post-judgment interest. Qorvis then moved to confirm the award in the federal district court, and Wilson moved to vacate. The district court entered judgment in favor of Qorvis. Wilson appealed on the primary basis that the arbitration agreement did not explicitly provide the parties a right to enforce an award in court, but rather merely referred to the rules of Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc. (“JAMS”). However, the Court of Appeals agreed with the district court that the JAMS rules clearly contemplated enforcement of any award in court under the Federal Arbitration Act, and that, combined with the strong public policy in favor of arbitration, “only an explicitly expressed intention that the award NOT be enforced by the courts would suffice to make the award unenforceable.” On that and other ancillary issues raised by Wilson, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s judgment. Qorvis Communications, LLC v. Wilson, No. 07-1967 (4th Cir. Dec. 3, 2008).

This post written by John Pitblado.