Photo of Ann Kramer

Ann Kramer

Subscribe to Ann Kramer's Posts
Contact:Read more about Ann Kramer

As discussed in our post last month, it was a long road for Arrowood Indemnity to be placed into liquidation in Delaware. On November 8, 2023, it finally happened [see Liquidation Order]. What happens now?

State Guaranty Funds 

For many policyholders, it means falling into the guaranty association safety net. By statute, states have created guaranty associations (or in New York, security funds administered by the Liquidation Bureau) to pay covered claims owed by the insolvent insurance company. The National Conference of Insurance Guaranty Funds has a handy compilation of those statutes. But there are a few things you need to know.

First, recovery may be possible from multiple guaranty associations. Because each state sets its own requirements, more than one guaranty association may be applicable to any particular loss, including (1) the state where the policyholder was a resident at the time of the insured event; (2) the state where the “claimant” was a resident at the time of the insured event; and (3) the permanent location of property from which the claim arises. There may be numerous insureds, and numerous claimants, and numerous properties, depending on the situation.Continue Reading Arrowood Indemnity Company enters liquidation

The Kemper/Lumbermens saga

To refresh everyone’s recollection, this is a report from Business Insurance from March 14, 2010:

  • The Long Grove, Ill.-based insurer [Kemper], which has been in voluntary runoff since 2004, earlier this month revealed a steep decline in its surplus, which several observers say indicates that liquidation is near.
  • But that may be preferred by some policyholders who have been wary of settling liabilities with Kemper without full knowledge of its settlement strategy, which they say has been veiled by the confidential nature of the runoff, some observers note.
  • In financial statements filed March 1, Kemper reported that its lead insurance unit, Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co., had a surplus of $8.1 million as of Dec. 31, 2009, a drop from about $113.2 million a year earlier.
  • Kemper’s American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Co. unit reported surplus of $11.2 million at the end of 2009, relatively unchanged from a year earlier. Lumbermens reinsures American Manufacturers, sources said.
  • The Illinois Department of Insurance approved Kemper’s runoff in 2004. Details of the runoff operations under the department’s supervision have been kept confidential.
  • But with Kemper’s operating expenses running at about $5 million a month and its surplus nearing depletion, a liquidation order is expected this year, several sources said.

It took another three years for the Kemper/Lumbermens companies to be ordered into liquidation proceedings in Illinois, over a decade after its alarming financial condition burst into public view at the end of 2002. Another ten years later, that liquidation continues, as noted in the Office of Special Deputy Receiver’s 2022 Annual report (see pages 6-7).Continue Reading Is Arrowood the next Kemper? The insurance insolvency system is broken

Insurance disclosure requirements have just become far more complex and onerous for parties that face litigation in New York state courts. In our January article (updated in February), we discussed the particulars of New York’s new Comprehensive Insurance Disclosure Act as it stood when the legislation was signed into law in late December 2021 and as contemplated by amendments proposed by the governor and being considered by the legislature. In late February, many of these proposed amendments were enacted into law.

With the law now seemingly settled, defendants are just beginning to grapple with this legislation, including developing long-term strategies for managing disclosures, taking stock of insurance-related information to get ahead of disclosure obligations, and initiating conversations with insurance coverage counsel, brokers and insurers. Until New York courts provide more direction regarding the application of the law, advance preparation and planning by policyholders to satisfy the legislation’s requirements will be key.

Recent amendments

As indicated above, the Comprehensive Insurance Disclosure Act was amended shortly after its passage. Three of these amendments in particular are worth noting. First, where the original version of the law was retroactive in applying to all existing lawsuits, the law now is limited to only those lawsuits filed on or after January 1, 2022. Second, defendants now have 90, rather than 60, days after service of an Answer to disclose the insurance-related information required by the law. Third, the law is no longer confined to policies sold or delivered in New York; instead, defendants must disclose responsive policies regardless of where the policy was procured or delivered.Continue Reading Policyholders grapple with strategies for responding to New York’s new insurance disclosure law

On December 31, New York’s Governor Kathy Hochul signed into law a change to the insurance disclosure requirements that applies to all civil cases filed in New York state’s courts. CPLR section 3101(f).  The new statute by its terms applies to both pending cases and new filings, with continuing disclosure obligations through appeals, and places heavy burdens on defendants and their counsel, going far beyond the previous insurance disclosure rules for New York state courts and the rules that apply in federal courts.

In signing the statute, which had flown under the radar since being worked up by the legislature last spring, however, the governor signaled that changes were needed [Signing Memorandum], but it was unclear which of the many new requirements of the statute were the focus of her concern.  As of this week, however, we have some insights.  On January 18, the Senate Rules Committee took up Senate Bill 7882, and the Assembly’s Committee on Judiciary took up the parallel Assembly Bill 8852, containing a raft of amendments that would, if passed and signed by Governor Hochul, substantially limit the scope of the statute she signed less than a month ago.  Most significantly, the statute would no longer apply to cases pending prior to the statute’s effective date, only to those commenced on or after its effective date. S7882/A8852 section 4.

Narrowing new insurance disclosure requirements

For any potentially responsive “insurance agreement,” the statute requires production within 90 days of the defendant’s answer of:

all primary, excess and umbrella policies, contracts or agreements issued by private or publicly traded stock companies, mutual insurance companies, captive insurance entities, risk retention groups, reciprocal insurance exchanges, syndicates, including, but not limited to, Lloyd’s Underwriters as defined in section six thousand one hundred sixteen of the insurance law, surplus line insurers and self-insurance programs sold or delivered within the state of New York insofar as such documents relate to the claim being litigated;Continue Reading NY’s new comprehensive insurance disclosure law is in flux

In a recent unanimous decision, the Appellate Division First Department provided clarity on the pleading requirements for policyholders seeking special or consequential damages allowed under the landmark decision of Bi-Economy Market v. Harleysville Insurance Company of New York, 856 N.Y.S.2d 505 (N.Y., Feb. 19, 2008). Under Bi-Economy, policyholders may seek special or consequential damages resulting from an insurance company’s failure to provide coverage if such damages were foreseen or should have been foreseen when the insurance contract was made. Id. at 508. In its prior ruling in Panasia Estates v. Hudson Insurance Company, the First Department noted that the “reference to such damages as ‘special’ in Bi-Economy Mkt. … was not intended to establish a requirement of specificity in pleading.” 889 N.Y.S.2d 452, 453 (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept., Dec. 15, 2009). The ruling, however, left open the question of what pleading requirements policyholders had to meet in order to state a claim for special damages, a question that it recently answered in D.K. Property v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, 2019 WL 237454 (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept., Jan. 17, 2019).
Continue Reading Lightening the load: New York Appellate Division rejects heightened pleading standard for policyholders seeking Bi-Economy Market consequential damages

In a promising development for policyholders, a New York state trial court recently signaled a potential end to the free pass courts often have provided to third-party claims administrators (TPAs), such as Resolute Management, Inc. (Resolute), that has enabled TPAs to act with near impunity when handling or adjusting claims on behalf of their insurer…

American International Group, Inc. (“AIG”) recently announced that it entered into a significant reinsurance agreement with a subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (“Berkshire”). Reportedly, that agreement “covers 80% of substantially all of AIG’s U.S. Commercial long-tail exposures for accident years 2015 and prior.”  While AIG states that it “will retain sole authority to handle and…

The New York Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, recently rejected an attempt to apply the “common interest doctrine,” an exception to the general rule that communicating privileged information to a third party waives the attorney-client privilege, to situations where separately represented parties communicate attorney-client privileged information in connection with transactions or other circumstances other than in anticipation of litigation. Ambac Assur. Corp. v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., No. 80, 2016 WL 3188989 (N.Y. June 9, 2016). As this case shows, companies should be mindful of what information they share outside the litigation context, because the common interest doctrine may not be available to protect that information.
Continue Reading ‘Sorry, But You Have Nothing in Common’: The New York Court of Appeals’ Recent Rejection of the ‘Common Interest Doctrine’ Outside the Context of Litigation

Insurance requirements in commercial agreements and corresponding additional insured provisions in insurance policies are important tools to manage and transfer risks. However, far too often those efforts are thwarted by inattention and, in some cases, sloppiness. As exemplified by the disastrous outcome for the contracting parties in Cincinnati Insurance Company v. Vita Food Products, Inc., No. 13 C 05181 (E.D. Ill. January 30, 2015), there are many pitfalls to successfully transfer risk and secure additional insured coverage.
Continue Reading Harmonizing Risk Transfer: Avoiding Pitfalls With Additional Insured Provisions

On December 19, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommended that U.S. consumers not eat any commercially produced, prepackaged caramel apples and that retailers not sell or serve them as they continue to investigate an outbreak of listeria monocytogenes which has infected at least 28 people from 10 states. The CDC has yet to identify the producer of the contaminated apples. Accordingly, the number of market players in the supply chain who will be affected by this recommendation – from farms through supermarkets – remains unknown.
Continue Reading Another Listeria Outbreak Reminds Food Industry to Revisit Insurance Program