Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

NONSIGNATORY TO ARBITRATION AGREEMENT NOT PERMITTED TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AGAINST REINSURER

by

The California Court of Appeal recently answered the question of when a nonsignatory to a reinsurance treaty containing an arbitration clause can compel arbitration against a signatory to that agreement. In 1979 and 1980, respectively, Allianz Global Corporate and Specialty Company (AIC Global) issued excess umbrella insurance policies to its insured (MacArthur Company). Thereafter, Clearwater Insurance issued two facultative certificates to AIC Global reinsuring the MacArthur policies. The facultative certificates did not contain an arbitration clause. In 1982, Clearwater entered into two excess reinsurance treaties with AIC Global’s sister company, Allianz Underwriters Insurance Company (AUIC Underwriters). Both of these treaties contained arbitration clauses. AIC Global and AUIC Underwriters subsequently settled asbestos liability claims made against MacArthur, and made a cash call to Clearwater, which refused to pay. AUIC Underwriters then filed an arbitration demand against Clearwater, adding AIC Global as a co-petitioner. After Clearwater contested the arbitration vis-à-vis AIC Global and filed a counterdemand, AUIC Underwriters and AIC Global petitioned a California trial court to compel arbitration. The trial court granted the petition, and Clearwater appealed.

On appeal, the parties disputed the application of the doctrine of equitable estoppel, which sometimes allows nonsignatories to invoke arbitration clauses to compel signatories into arbitration when the signing party has signed an agreement to arbitrate but attempts to avoid arbitration by suing the nonsignatory defendant for claims that are based on the same facts and are inherently inseparable from claims against a signatory defendant. The Court of Appeal determined that the evidence submitted insufficiently substantiated an “integral relationship” between AIC Global and AUIC Underwriters, since there was no showing of how these two companies were jointly involved in the negotiation of either the MacArthur policies or the Clearwater reinsurance agreements. The court also determined that there had not been a showing that AIC Global’s claim was “intertwined” with the 1982 treaties containing the arbitration clause. On this record, the Court of Appeal reversed and directed the trial court to set aside its order compelling Clearwater to arbitrate with AIC Global. Clearwater Insurance Co. v. Superior Court, Case No. B200692 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2008).

This post written by Brian Perryman.

STAY DENIED IN CASE INVOLVING ISSUE OF ARBITRATION CONSOLIDATION

by

On February 11, 2008, we reported on a district court decision holding that arbitrators, not the court, possessed the authority to decide whether reinsurance claims relating to two different hurricanes should proceed before separate panels or a single panel of arbitrators. The district court has denied a stay of its decision pending appeal. Dorinco Reinsurance Co. v. Ace American Ins. Co., Case No. 07-12622 (USDC E.D. Mich. Mar. 5, 2008).

This post written by Rollie Goss.

MULTI-YEAR REINSURANCE AGREEMENT REMAINS IN FORCE DESPITE LIQUIDATION OF CEDENT

by

A reinsurance agreement reinsured crop insurance risks from two related cedents over a five year period, with an initial premium amount for the first two years, followed by annual premium payments thereafter. After paying the premium for the first two years, one cedent was placed in liquidation and the other was placed under supervision. Their parent filed for bankruptcy protection. The issue arose as to whether the reinsurance agreement was enforceable for the remaining three years, since the cedents had ceased writing crop insurance. While bankruptcy court ruled in favor of the cedents, a bankruptcy appellate panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed, finding that the reinsurance agreement was an enforceable five year agreement, allowing a claim by the reinsurer for the remaining $9 million of premium. The court of appeals based its decision on accepted principles of contract interpretation, rejecting the contention that there was a frustration of purpose when the companies stopped issuing crop insurance. The court reasoned that the cessation of writing crop insurance was foreseeable in the event that the companies did not maintain sufficient capital, and did not amount to frustration of purpose. In re Acceptance insurance Companies, No. 07-6027/6029 (8th Cir. Mar. 12, 2008).

This post written by Rollie Goss.

BARBADOS REINSURER SUBJECT TO U.S. JURISDICTION

by

Phencorp is a reinsurance company organized under the laws of Barbados. Phencorp is a wholly owned subsidiary of Philip Services Corporation (“PSC”), a Delaware corporation. In 2004, Central States sued Phencorp to recover funds allegedly owed to it by PSC under ERISA. After improperly serving the complaint on one of Phencorp’s former employees, the court directed that Phencorp could be properly served through its attorneys. The parties were permitted to conduct discovery on the issue of jurisdiction. This matter came before the court on Phencorp’s motion to dismiss the Complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.

The court denied Phencorp’s motion to dismiss, concluding that although Phencorp had no employees, physical place of business or real estate in the U.S., it had sufficient contacts to support personal jurisdiction. Specifically, the court found that Phencorp had entered into at least five reinsurance agreements with fronting companies that have operations in the U.S., and that Phencorp agreed to submit disputes arising under the reinsurance contracts to arbitration in New York. Additionally, Phencorp maintained a post office box in Florida through an agent. Lastly, the court noted that Phencorp maintained a bank account in the U.S. and requested to be treated as a domestic corporation for U.S. tax purposes. Central States v. Phencorp Reinsurance Company, Case No. 04 C 5655 (USDC N.D. Ill. Jan. 11, 2008).

This post written by Lynn Hawkins.

ARBITRATION AWARDS UPHELD OVER CHALLENGES TO ARBITRATOR

by

Two recent decisions addressed requests to vacate arbitration awards due to concerns over arbitrator qualifications and bias. In Woods v. P.A.M. Transport, Inc., Case No. 07-605 (USDC N.D. Tex. Feb. 8, 2008), a motion was filed to vacate an arbitration award on the basis that the arbitrator failed to disclose that he had been removed from the American Arbitration Association's list of approved arbitrators. The court held that insufficient evidence was presented that the arbitrator was not sanctioned by the AAA, or that such facts, if true, justified vacation of the award under the FAA. The court also held that the moving party had not demonstrated that the award was in manifest disregard of law. In In re Aviles v. Allstate Ins. Co., Case No. 2007-6808 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. App. Div.), the court reversed an Order vacating an arbitration award on the basis that the arbitrator was biased. There was no transcript of the arbitration hearing available, and a clearly insufficient record to support a determination that the arbitrator was biased.

This post written by Rollie Goss.