May 23, 2012

District Court Reaffirms Unauthorized Reinsurer to Post Pre-Pleading Security

ARROWOOD SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE CO. V. GETTYSBURG NATIONAL INDEMNITY DISTRICT COURT OF CONNECTICUT (CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-972 May 10, 2010)

Arrowood Surplus Lines Insurance (“Arrowood”) requested the district court to issue an order requiring Gettysburg National Indemnity (“Gettysburg”) to post over six hundred thousand dollars in pre-pleading security regarding a reinsurance dispute. Arrowood relied on Connecticut General Statute Section 38a-27(a), which requires “unauthorized insurers” to post pre-pleading security.

This dispute arises out of a series of reinsurance agreements between Arrowood and Gettysburg which stated that each agreement reinsured approximately ten percent of the hundred percent quota share of the first million dollars of the cedent’s net liability up to an aggregate attachment point of ninety percent of the gross written premiums. Arrowood claimed Gettysburg is responsible for over a million dollars in obligations including its gap collateral obligations together with loss adjustments. Gettysburg argued that it should not be responsible for submitting security in an amount exceeding their gap coverage obligations which are approximately four hundred thousand dollars. The district court disagreed claiming the security should consist of all of the obligations under the reinsurance agreements. The court concluded that if the reinsurer is “undercapitalized … Gettysburg has the recourse against the shareholders under the terms of the agreement.”

On May 10, 2010, the District Court confirmed the Magistrate’s decision requiring the security over Gettysburg’ s objections on the grounds that it should not be required to pay any amount in excess of the funds remaining in the various accounts in question.

IMPACT (REINSURANCE): The issue of a reinsurer being undercapitized or insolvent is a persistent problem and the subject of several important court decisions. Practitioners should be cognizant of the state and federal laws which allow for pre-pleading security to ensure that certain funds are set aside to potentially satisfy (or partially satisfy) a judgment. In this issue Connecticut, like several other states, requires unauthorized insurers to post pre-pleading security to satisfy any financial obligation stemming from litigation over policies. Given the recent motion practice, we fully expect that Gettysburg will appeal this decision.

All content © 2012 Goldberg Segalla LLP

About the Author

Listed in Business First's Who's Who in Law, named to New York Super Lawyers, and AV rated by Martindale Hubbell, Daniel W Gerber is a partner of the firm and maintains a national practice in commercial litigation with a focus on complex insurance coverage disputes and analysis. He chairs Goldberg Segalla's Life, Health, Disability and ERISA practice group and co-chairs the firm's Global Insurance Services practice group. Mr. Gerber is admitted to the United States Supreme Court, as well as all Federal and State courts in New York. He argues regularly in...

716-566-5425

About the Author

Jeffrey L. Kingsley is a partner and experienced member of Goldberg Segalla LLP's Global Insurance Services Practice Group.  He maintains an international practice with a focus on complex insurance and reinsurance coverage disputes as well as extra-contractual liability arbitration and litigation.  He has written several articles on recent reinsurance trends including the rise of original policyholder and the expanding power of arbitrators under the Federal Arbitration Act.  He is the co-editor of Goldberg Segalla's Reinsurance Review,...

716-566-5434

Contributors

Thomas F. Segalla, is the co-author of the renowned insurance law treatise Couch on Insurance 3d and is one of the founding partners of the firm.  Mr. Segalla is a nationally recognized reinsurance and insurance expert who has been retained by numerous insurance carriers and policyholders.  His active practice focuses on the defense and insurance coverage aspects of matters involving bad faith; construction site personal injury accidents (Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1) and 241(6)); and toxic tort and environmental issues. As a member of the...

716-566-5480

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.