Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

England’s High Court Orders Reinsurer To Provide For Security For Costs

by

This dispute arose out of an alleged breach of a gas transit agreement, in which Russian gas giant Gazprom alleged that Naftogaz’s predecessor took more gas than it was entitled to under the terms of a transit agreement. Gazprom’s captive insurer, Sogaz, paid Gazprom over $88 million dollars to cover its loss. Sogaz’s reinsurer, Monde Re, in turn paid Sogaz the like sum. Gazprom’s claims against Naftogaz passed to Monde Re by way of subrogation. Monde Re succeeded on its claim against Naftogaz at the International Commercial Arbitration Court in Moscow. The award was later assigned from Monde Re, which was in liquidation, to Gater Assets Limited (“Gater”).

Subsequently, an English court ordered enforcement of the arbitration award. Naftogaz applied to the English High Court to have the award set aside based on the fact that there was no arbitration agreement between the claimant and the defendant, among several other reasons. Naftogaz also applied for an order that Gater provide security for costs pursuant to CPR 25.12 and 13.

Over Gater’s objections, the Court ruled that it had jurisdiction to order security for costs in favor of a party seeking to set aside enforcement of a domestic or New York Convention arbitration award because such a party can qualify as a defendant under CPR 2.3(1). The court ordered Gater to provide security in the amount of £250,000. Gater Assets Ltd. v. Nak Naftogaz, [2007] EWHC 697 (Comm. Ct. Mar. 22, 2007).

Court Confirms Arbitration Award Over Objection of Moving Party

by

In an unusual twist in a matter unrelated to reinsurance, an arbitration panel awarded a party in a construction dispute approximately $1.4 million, when the Petitioner sought an award of approximately $6 million, and the Respondent’s expert had estimated the losses at approximately $4 million. The parties each filed separate proceedings directed to the award. When the Petitioner’s request for vacation of the award was denied, the Respondent sought to voluntarily dismiss its request for confirmation under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 41, apparently due to its belief that since the limitation period for confirmation had expired, the award might be unenforceable, and it could try again for a larger award. The district court found the attempted dismissal null and void, and confirmed the award, holding that Rule 41 applied by its terms only to “actions,” and that since requests for confirmation of arbitration awards were motions rather than actions, Rule 41 did not apply. The court proceeded to confirm the award. Alstom Power, Inc. v. S & B Engineers & Constructors, Ltd., Case No. 04-2370 (USDC N.D.Tex. April 30, 2007). The court may have felt that Alstom Power was abusing the Court's process.

Court Dismisses Shareholder Derivative Suit Against Scottish Re Officers and Directors

by

A United States District Court, applying the law of the Cayman Islands, has dismissed a shareholder derivative action brought against certain of Scottish Re’s officers and directors, alleging misrepresentations as to the Company’s business and false financial reports in violation of United States securities laws. In accordance with Cayman law, due to the silence of Cayman law as to the relevant issues, the Court consulted English law. Under English law, derivative claims are owned and controlled by the company rather than by its shareholders, and shareholders generally lack standing to bring such claims. Failing to find any applicable exception to this general standing rule, the court dismissed the claims. Winn v. Schafer, Case No. 06-10170 (USDC S.D.N.Y. May 7, 2007).

Law review articles relating to reinsurance

by

Three articles were recently published in law reviews and journals relating to reinsurance:

  • Health care reform – In The Present and Future of Government-Funded Reinsurance, 51 St. Louis U. L. J. 369 (Winter 2007), John Jacobi, a professor at Seton Hall Law School, contends that government-funded reinsurance could play a valuable role in incremental health care reform.
  • Reinsurance intermediaries – In Reinsurance Intermediaries: law and litigation, 29 U. Haw. L. Rev. 59 (Winter 2006), Douglas Richmond, a Senior Vice President with Aon Risk Services, analyzes the duties and potential liabilities of reinsurance intermediaries using fairly traditional agency concepts.
  • Hedge funds – In The Utility of Hedge Funds: an alternative to traditional reinsurance, 49 For The Defense 32 (April 2007), practitioners James Somers and Katie Lewis Bordeau offer a general description of the participation of hedge funds in the reinsurance market. Although the title of the article describes hedge funds as an “alternative” to reinsurance, the text really describes hedge funds as a source of capital for vehicles such as side cars.

Court affirms dismissal of most claims against Republic of Indonesia and state-owned insurer under Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act

by

Anglo-Iberia Underwriting Management Company and Industrial Re International sued an employee of the Indonesian state-owned social security insurer, Jamsostek, who while on leave in Colorado studying for an M.B.A. perpetrated an international reinsurance fraud scam that cost the Plaintiffs an estimated $55 million. Plaintiffs also sued Jamsostek and the Republic of Indonesia, alleging that they had breached contractual obligations to Plaintiffs and negligently failed to supervise their employee. The district court had dismissed all claims against Indonesia and Jamsostek based upon the sovereign immunity conferred by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. The Second Circuit addressed the issue of whether the immunity exception for commercial activities applied. The Court of Appeal found that the contract claims were properly dismissed, but that the district court had failed adequately to consider the negligent supervision claim, and remanded for further consideration with respect to that claim. In remanding, the appellate panel set out the standards for the application of the commercial activity exception. Anglo-Iberia Underwriting Management Co. v.Lodderhose, Case No. 03-9260 (2d Cir. May 25, 2007).