Traditional reinsurance programs tend to cover a cedent’s underlying policies over many years. Although a long-term relationship may exist, typically the reinsurance only covers policies or claims within a particular policy year. If, in those circumstances, the reinsurance attaches over a retention, then losses incurred in different policy years generally are subject to separate retentions, which could limit the reinsurance recovery if the claims arise out of the same dispute. If, however, the underlying losses constitute a single wrongful act, then perhaps only one retention is required. The number of retentions may make the difference between a limited reinsurance recovery and a more substantial reinsurance recovery. A recent case addressed this issue.
Continue reading “Reinsurer Wins Summary Judgment on Question of Number of Wrongful Acts”Category: Blog
US Supreme Court Clears Up the Stay/Dismissal Circuit Split
For some time, there has been a federal circuit split on whether a district court may dismiss a case where a dispute is subject to arbitration under section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) and one of the parties asks the court to stay the action pending arbitration rather than dismiss the proceeding. That question has now been answered by a unanimous Court.
Continue reading “US Supreme Court Clears Up the Stay/Dismissal Circuit Split”Common Interest Doctrine Prevails in Disclosure Dispute
Communications between an insurance carrier and its reinsurers may or may not be protected by privilege and may or may not be further protected by the common interest doctrine. The analysis is fact-specific, but important where reinsurance communications are sought in litigation. In a recent case, a New York federal court upheld an insurer’s withholding of reinsurance communications based on both work-product privilege and the common interest doctrine.
Continue reading “Common Interest Doctrine Prevails in Disclosure Dispute”How Far Does a Reinsurer’s Right to Inspect Records Go?
Most reinsurance contracts have a provision that allows the reinsurer to inspect or audit the books and records of the cedent or the cedent’s agent. The reasons behind this provision are obvious. The reinsurer needs to know if premiums or losses are being booked and handled correctly given that the reinsurer is indemnifying the cedent for losses under the insurance policies ceded to the reinsurance contract. Where an agents like MGAs or TPAs are involved, audits are even more important because of the third-party nature of the arrangement and because of commission and profit sharing provisions.
The scope of the right to inspection, however, differs by clause. Some inspection clauses are very detailed and some are cursory statements of an audit right. Some restrict rights and some are expansive. As in most cases, the parties only get the rights that they bargained for and included in the reinsurance contract.
In a recent Texas case, a reinsurer brought suit over its right of inspection of the cedent’s managing general agent’s files.
Continue reading “How Far Does a Reinsurer’s Right to Inspect Records Go?”Cedent Denied Second Bite at the Apple in Dispute Over Reinsurance Coverage
Some reinsurance disputes repeat. Either they involve different reinsurers on the same contract or different reinsurers on the same claim or different reinsurers on similar contracts on the same basic issue. Where a cedent loses an arbitration on an issue that repeats in a subsequent reinsurance dispute, should the cedent be estopped from seeking a reinsurance recovery from the other reinsurer? A Michigan federal court recently addressed this issue.
Continue reading “Cedent Denied Second Bite at the Apple in Dispute Over Reinsurance Coverage”Cedent Wins Late Notice Dispute
It’s been a while since there has been a court opinion on the defense of late notice in a reinsurance dispute. Recently, a Texas federal court had the pleasure of addressing the issue.
Continue reading “Cedent Wins Late Notice Dispute”Arbitration Award Confirmed In the Face of Recapture and Request to Seal Is Denied
Parties to reinsurance arbitrations often file in court to confirm (or vacate) arbitral awards. Some file even though the adverse party has complied with the arbitration award. When doing so, they invariably invoke the confidentiality agreement in the proceeding to seal the award and other related documents used in the petition to confirm. Must the court confirm and must the court seal the documents? We have seen this movie before.
Continue reading “Arbitration Award Confirmed In the Face of Recapture and Request to Seal Is Denied”When Seeking a Default Judgment Proof of Damages Must Be Clear
Chasing down reinsurance proceeds from non-US reinsurers is never easy. Multiple US cedents have had to bring proceedings to collect from a wide variety of non-US reinsurers from around the globe. Many of these reinsurers were or are arms of foreign governments and many have gone insolvent or have been privatized. Not surprisingly, some never appear in US proceedings and then seek to resist default judgments. In a recent case, a cedent obtained a default but was temporarily denied a default judgment because of issues with evidence of damages.
Continue reading “When Seeking a Default Judgment Proof of Damages Must Be Clear”Missing or Lost Reinsurance Contracts
Ever wonder about missing or lost reinsurance contracts? Well today is your lucky day. By chance my latest Expert Commentary-Reinsurance for IRMI.com has been published and it discusses missing or lost reinsurance contracts and the circumstances that may lead to the contract having gone missing. You can read the Commentary here (you may have to register).
New York’s Highest Court Rules Direct Physical Loss or Damage Requires Material Alteration or Complete and Persistent Dispossession
The New York Court of Appeals (New York’s highest court for those expecting it to be the supreme court) has finally weighed in on the COVID-19 question of what direct physical loss or damage means in a property policy providing business interruption coverage. Not surprisingly, New York joins the vast majority of state and federal courts and affirmed the order below dismissing the complaint.
Continue reading “New York’s Highest Court Rules Direct Physical Loss or Damage Requires Material Alteration or Complete and Persistent Dispossession”