On June 6, we reported on a settlement reached with a number of insurers with respect to the destruction of New York’s World Trade Center towers. SCOR, which provided reinsurance to one of the settling insurers, Allianz Global Risks, has issued a press release stating that the settlement agreement “does not respect the terms and conditions of the Certificate of Reinsurance between SCOR and Allianz,” and stating that SCOR has requested that the issue of whether the settlement is within the coverage of its reinsurance be referred to arbitration.
District Court Compels Discovery of Reinsurance Agreement In Declaratory Judgment Action Between Insurers and Insured
In an insurance coverage case involving fifteen insurance companies and one insured, the insured, Bunge North America, filed a motion to compel discovery relating to reinsurance, loss reserves, claims handling manuals, and document retention policies. The insurers filed a declaratory judgment action against Bune seeking a declaration that under the terms of the policy, they did not have an obligation to defend, indemnify, or reimburse Bunge for damages caused by pollution at one of Bunge’s sites. In various counterclaims and cross claims, Bunge alleged that the insurers acted in bad faith in failing to fairly investigate Bunge’s coverage claims in a timely manner.
The Kansas District Court ruled that the reinsurance agreement, normally beyond the scope of discovery in a declaratory judgment action, was discoverable because Bunge had brought several counterclaims in which it sought a monetary award. Specifically, the court found that reinsurance was relevant “for purposes of rebutting the Insurers’ defense of late notice, for purposes of establishing Bunge’s claims of bad faith and improper handling, and for purposes of reconstructing the terms of any lost policies.” United States Fire Ins. v. Bunge North America, Case No. 05-2192-JWL-DJW (USDC D. Kan. May 25, 2007).
England’s High Court Orders Reinsurer To Provide For Security For Costs
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
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
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).