The NAIC’s Reinsurance Task Force has advanced a proposal “to comprehensively modernize reinsurance regulation in the United States.” The proposal is outlined in a press release issued in conjunction with the recent meeting of the Annual Conference of the International Association of Insurance Supervisors. The proposal is in two parts: (1) NAIC Reinsurance Supervision Review Department; draft proposal to grant recognition of regulatory equivalence to non-U.S. insurance supervisors; and (2) Port of Entry State Criteria for Reinsures [sic] Supervised in Jurisdictions Approved by the NAIC Reinsurance Supervision Review Department and U.S. Licensed Reinsurers. Generally, the proposals provide for the regulation of US domiciled reinsurers through a single state, and the agreement to allow non-US domiciled reinsurers to be regulated in the United States through a single state “port of entry” if the foreign regulatory authorities provide a regulatory regime for the company that is functionally equivalent” to that in the United States The proposals also partially change the collateral requirements to a credit-based system, but do not by any means completely eliminate the collateral requirements. The NAIC has also posted on its website a PowerPoint presentation titled NAIC Reinsurance Collateral Update. The next step in this process is a meeting on November 7-8 in Atlanta in conjunction with the NAIC Financial Summit. Comments on the proposal are posted on the NAIC Reinsurance Task Force’s web site.
ENGLISH COURT ALLOWS UNDERWRITER TO CONTINUE RUN-OFF BUSINESS
In 2003, insurer Europ Assistance, and underwriter, Temple Legal Protection, entered into a binding authority agreement that authorized Temple to write ‘after the expenses’ coverage and handle claims on behalf of Europ. In exchange, Temple received 35% commission on the net premium. In 2005, Europ terminated the business with respect to new business, and in April 2007, Europ informed Temple that it planned to revoke all of Temple’s authority. Temple asserted that Europ repudiated the binding authority agreement.
While waiting for resolution of the underlying dispute, Europ sought an injunction barring Temple from continuing to carry on the run-off business, alleging that Temple was causing loss by unlawful means and was guilty of unlawful interference and breach of trust in failing to hand over premiums.
Balancing the interest of both parties, the English court refused to enjoin Temple from continuing with the run-off business. The court seemed influenced by the fact that Europ, a subsidiary of the well known and substantial Italian insurance company Assurazioni Generali SpA, had no continuing interest in the expenses business. In contrast, Temple, a small company, would be adversely affected if it were barred from running off the business. Europ Assistance Ins. Ltd. v. Temple Legal Protection Ltd., [2007] EWHC 1785 (Queen’s Bench July 25, 2007).
DISTRICT COURT QUASHES CRIMINAL SUBPOENAS ISSUED TO INSURANCE COMPANIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS
Last year, a federal grand jury in New Haven indicted four former senior executives of General Re Corporation and one former senior executive of AIG for their participation in a fraudulent scheme to manipulate AIG’s financial statements. Recently, three of the defendants issued multiple subpoenas to several insurance companies and their attorneys pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(c). The subpoenas were contested by both the government and the third party subpoena recipients.
Applying the legal standard set forth by the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Nixon, the district court concluded that the subpoenas were unenforceable because they sought materials outside the proper scope of Rule 17(c). Specifically, the materials sought by several of the subpoenas would only be useful as impeachment materials, and therefore failed Nixon’s admissibility requirement. Other subpoenas were to be found unenforceable because they failed Nixon’s relevancy requirement. United States of America v. Ferguson, Case No. 3:06cr137, (USDC D. Ct. Sept. 26, 2007).
SENATE COMMITTEE PASSES TRIA EXTENSION
The Senate Banking Committee has approved an extension of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act. Principal differences between the Senate Committee's version and the version approved by the full House are:
- duration: the House version provides for a 15 year extension, the Senate Committee version 7 years;
- coverage trigger level: the House version reduces the threshold for triggering coverage from $100 million to $50 million, while the Senate Committee version maintains the $100 million trigger level;
- coverage: the House version adds credit life insurance and nuclear, biological, chemical and radiological attacks, while the Senate Committee version does not broaden the scope of coverage.
A copy of the Senate Committee's version is not yet available on the Thomas legislative site.
REN RE REACHES PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF SHAREHOLDER CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT
Renaissance Re has reached a proposed settlement of a shareholder class action lawsuit arising out of alleged finite reinsurance transactions. The proposed settlement would result in a cash fund of $13.5 million against which claimants could submit claims. Class counsel filed a memorandum in support of preliminary approval of the proposed settlement and a supplemental memorandum. The court then entered a preliminary approval order, setting a fairness hearing for consideration of final approval of the proposed settlement on January 11, 2008. This proposed settlement is in addition to Ren Re's $15 million settlement with the SEC reported on in a February 16, 2007 post to this blog.