Silence Deemed Insufficient to Preclude Aggregate Liability

In a matter that is difficult to describe briefly, an arbitrator has entered an award in an interesting reinsurance claims issue, and the award has been confirmed. Gerling Global Reinsurance Corporation (“Gerling”) issued a certificate of facultative reinsurance to Employers’ Surplus Lines Insurance (“Employers”) reinsuring an Excess Umbrella policy providing for $5,000,000 per occurrence and aggregate losses. When Gerling refused to pay its pro rata share of certain indemnity and defense costs, Employers demanded arbitration to enforce the certificate. Gerling argued that a non-concurrency existed between the facultative certificate and the umbrella policy with regard to the aggregate liability and liability for defense costs. Gerling argued that the absence of the word “aggregate” in various sections of the certificate precluded consideration of aggregate limits of liability and that its reinsurance limits applied strictly on a per-occurrence basis. Gerling also argued that it was not required to reimburse Employers for the defense costs associated with the settlement because the “follow the settlements” clause in the certificate was subject to the condition that an indemnity payment must be made on a specific claim before any defense costs attached. Gerling argued that this language was non-concurrent with Employers’ ultimate net loss liability theory. While the arbitrator acknowledged that the presumption of concurrency is “not absolute and can be overridden by clear language of limitation in the certificate,” this was not such a case. The arbitrator concluded that the absence of the word “aggregate” was insufficient to preclude liability, stating that “silence, as an expression of limitation, strains credulity and is insufficient to preclude aggregate liability.” The arbitrator also noted Gerling’s failure to use any of the methods available to it to limit aggregate liability, such as including the phrase “Nil Aggregate” in the certificate or by adding an endorsement. With respect to liability for defense costs, the arbitrator concluded that Gerling misinterpreted the “follow the settlements” clause and that the concept of “ultimate net loss” contained in the Employers’ policy was entitled to the presumption of concurrence. As such, Gerling was responsible for its share of the defense costs. Employers’ Surplus Lines Insurance Co. v. Global Reinsurance Corp., Case No. 07-30 (USDC S.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 2007).