Tag: Insurance Law

New York’s Highest Court Reinstates $5 Billion Lawsuit By Big Banks Against MBIA

Posted recently at the National Law Review by Michael C. Hefter and Seth M. Cohen of Bracewell & Giuliani LLP news about New York’s highest court reinstating a $5 billion lawsuit brought by a group of banks, including Bank of America and Wells Fargo, against MBIA. 

New York’s highest court yesterday reinstated a $5 billion lawsuit brought by a group of banks, including Bank of America and Wells Fargo, against insurance giant MBIA. ABN AMRO Bank, et al. v. MBIA Inc., et al., — N.E. 2d –, 2011 WL 2534059, slip op. (June 28, 2011). The Plaintiffs-banks sought to annul MBIA’s 2009 restructuring, which separated the insurer’s municipal bond business from its troubled structured finance unit, on the grounds that the transactions left the insurer incapable of paying insurance claims in violation of New York’s Debtor and Creditor Law. The Superintendent of Insurance in New York approved the transactions that effectuated the split of MBIA’s business in 2009. 

The Court of Appeals’ decision represents a victory for Wall Street banks in one of the many battles being fought in connection with the collapse of the financial markets. Those banks saw their fraudulent transfer claims against MBIA dismissed earlier this year by the Appellate Division, First Department. The intermediate appellate court determined that the banks’ fraudulent transfer claims were a “collateral attack” on the Superintendent’s authorization of the restructuring and that an Article 78 proceeding challenging that authorization was the sole remedy available to the Plaintiffs. The banks’ remedies under Article 78 – a procedure entitling aggrieved parties to challenge agency decisions – would be limited compared to those remedies available in state or federal court under a fraudulent transfer theory. 

At issue for the Court of Appeals was whether the Plaintiffs-banks had the right to challenge the restructuring plan in light of the Superintendent’s approval. Plaintiffs argued that the restructuring was a fraudulent conveyance because MBIA Insurance siphoned approximately $5 billion in cash and securities to a subsidiary for no consideration, thereby leaving the insurer undercapitalized, insolvent and incapable of meeting its obligations under the terms of the respective insurance policies. MBIA countered that, as held by the First Department, Plaintiffs’ claims were impermissible “collateral attacks” on the Superintendant’s approval of the restructuring. 

In a 5-2 decision, the Court of Appeals modified the First Department’s decision and reinstated the Plaintiffs’ breach of contract, common law, and creditor claims. In an opinion authored by Judge Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, the Court held that NY Insurance Law does not vest the Superintendent with “broad preemptive power” to block the banks’ claims. MBIA Inc., 2011 WL 2534059, slip op. at 16.

“If the Legislature actually intended the Superintendent to extinguish the historic rights of policyholders to attack fraudulent transactions under the Debtor and Creditor Law or the common law, we would expect to see evidence of such intent within the statute. Here, we find no such intent in the statute.” Id.

Critical to the Court’s holding was that Plaintiffs had no notice or input into the Insurance Department’s decision to approve MBIA’s restructuring. “That the Superintendent complied with lawful administrative procedure, in that the Insurance Law did not impose a requirement that he provide plaintiffs notice before issuing his determination, does not alter our analysis,” Judge Ciparick wrote. “To hold otherwise would infringe upon plaintiffs’ constitutional right to due process.” MBIA Inc., 2011 WL 2534059, slip op. at 21. Moreover, the Court noted that Plaintiffs’ claims could not be properly raised and adjudicated in an Article 78 proceeding. Id.

The Court’s decision re-opens claims by multiple financial institutions that MBIA instituted the restructuring in order to leave policyholders without financial recourse. 

The case is ABN AMRO BANK NV. et al., v. MBIA Inc., et al, 601475-2009 (N.Y. State Supreme Court, New York County.)

© 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP

Texas Supreme Court Makes Enforcement of Noncompete Agreements Easier for Employers

Posted this week at the National Law Review by Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP  a good recap of the Texas Supreme Court decision which clarifies the standards for enforcing noncompete agreements: 

On June 24, the Texas Supreme Court issued a long-awaited decision clarifying the standards for enforcement of noncompete agreements under the Texas Business and Commerce Code. In Marsh USA Inc. and Marsh & McLennan Cos. v. Rex Cook, the court considered whether an employee’s receipt of stock options could sustain an agreement that prohibited the employee from soliciting or accepting business from certain customers of Marsh McLennan (Marsh).

Noncompete agreements, which include prohibitions on working for a competitor and limitations on an employee’s ability to solicit customers, are governed in Texas by the Texas Business and Commerce Code. Under that statute, such agreements may be enforced only if they contain reasonable limitations with respect to geography, time, and scope of activity to be prohibited and only if they are “ancillary to or part of an otherwise enforceable agreement.” Texas courts, as well as practitioners and employers, have struggled with this latter requirement. The Cook case represents a significant change in Texas law and a departure from the Texas Supreme Court’s previous analysis of noncompete agreements.

Under previous court decisions, the analytical focus was on the type of consideration provided by the employer in exchange for the employee’s promise to refrain from competing. Specifically, a Texas employer seeking to enforce a noncompete agreement must have been able to show that the consideration it provided to the employee “gave rise to an interest” in restraining competition. For example, an employer’s promise of trade secrets or confidential information was deemed sufficient consideration to support a noncompete agreement whereas simple cash consideration was not.

In Cook, the Texas Supreme Court considered whether an employer’s grant of stock options satisfied the “ancillary” prong of the Texas Business and Commerce Code. Cook joined Marsh in 1983 and signed an agreement under which he could exercise certain stock options in exchange for signing an agreement limiting his ability to solicit or accept business from clients of Marsh with whom he had business dealings during his employment. Cook thus signed the noncompete agreement not when he was provided the original grant of stock options, but rather when he chose to exercise the options.

After his separation from employment with Marsh, Cook went to work for a competitor. He thereafter was sued by Marsh for breach of his contract and for breach of fiduciary duty. Cook filed a motion for summary judgment in the district court on the grounds that the agreement was unenforceable under the Texas Business and Commerce Code. The trial court granted Cook’s motion and an appellate court affirmed that ruling.

The Texas Supreme Court, in a 6-3 opinion, disagreed with the lower courts and reversed the grant of summary judgment. Significantly, the court overruled previous authority that focused on the type of consideration provided by the employer and the assessment of whether or not that consideration “gives rise” to an interest in restraining competition. Rather, the court construed the Texas Business and Commerce Code as requiring simply that there be a nexus between the noncompete agreement and the employer’s interests, holding that the noncompete agreement “must be reasonably related to the [employer’s] interest worthy of protection.” The court emphasized Cook’s high-level executive position with the company and found that, by providing an ownership interest in the company, the stock options provided to Cook were “reasonably related to the company’s interest in protecting its goodwill, a business interest the [Texas Business and Commerce Code] recognizes as worthy of protection.” The noncompete was thus enforceable on that basis.

As a practical matter, Cook should make enforcement of noncompete agreements easier in Texas. The decision represents a shift from the previous, more technical focus on the type of consideration provided in the noncompete agreement to a more generalized assessment of the employer’s interests in restraining competition. Cook follows a trend of other recent Texas Supreme Court cases that have found that the enforcement of noncompete agreements should be decided in the context of the overall purpose of the Texas Business and Commerce Code, which is to provide for reasonable restrictions that protect legitimate business interests.

Copyright © 2011 by Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP. All Rights Reserved.

Don't Gamble with My Money: When a Lawsuit Seeks Damages in Excess of Policy Limits, What Are the Insured's Rights in Illinois?

Posted this week at the National Law Review by Daniel J. Struck and Neil B. Posner of Much Shelist Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein P.C.  a good overview of R.C. Wegman Construction Company v. Admiral Insurance Company which help address the issues involved with insurance claims in excess of policy limits in Illinois: 

In general, if a lawsuit is covered or potentially covered by a commercial general liability (CGL) insurance policy, the insurer has a duty to defend that claim. If the insurer provides that defense without reserving its rights to deny coverage, the insurer is entitled to select defense counsel and control the defense. But when the insurer defends under a reservation of rights, that reservation may create a conflict of interest between the insurer and the insured.

The leading Illinois Supreme Court case on this subject is Maryland Casualty v. Peppers, decided in 1976. According to Peppers, when an insurer defends an insured, but reserves the right to deny coverage based on an exclusion in the insurance policy (the applicability of which could be established during the course of defending the insured), there is a conflict of interest that gives the insured the right to select independent counsel to defend it at the insurer’s expense. But the Illinois Supreme Court did not say that this is the only conflict of interest that could give rise to the insured’s right to select independent defense counsel.

In R.C. Wegman Construction Company v. Admiral Insurance Company, decided in 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit answered a question that has vexed Illinois insureds for a long time. Although the case involves a relatively uncommon set of facts, the court’s ruling in Wegman recognizes the conflicting interests that can arise between insureds and insurers when an insured faces a claim in which there is a “non-trivial probability” that there could be a judgment in excess of policy limits.

The Nuts and Bolts of Wegman

R.C. Wegman Construction Company was the manager of a construction site at which another contractor’s employee was seriously injured. Wegman was an additional insured under a policy issued by Admiral Insurance to the other contractor. When the worker sued Wegman, Admiral acknowledged its duty to defend, apparently without reserving any rights, and undertook the control of Wegman’s defense. The Admiral policy provided $1 million in per-occurrence limits of liability. Although it soon became clear that there was a “realistic possibility” that the underlying lawsuit would result in a settlement or judgment in excess of the policy limits, Admiral never provided this information to Wegman.

Shortly before trial, a Wegman executive was chatting about the case with a relative who happened to be an attorney. That relative pointed out the risk of liability in excess of policy limits, and mentioned that it was important for Wegman to notify its excess insurers. But by then it was too late, and the excess insurer denied coverage because notice was untimely. A judgment was entered against Wegman for more than $2 million. Wegman sued Admiral for failing to give sufficient warning of the possibility of an excess judgment so that Wegman could give timely notice to its excess insurer. According to the Seventh Circuit, the key issue was whether this situation—in which there was a risk of judgment in excess of the limit of liability, and where the insurer was paying for and controlling the defense—gave rise to a conflict of interest.

Admiral’s explanation for failing to inform Wegman was ultimately part of its downfall. Because there were other defendants in the underlying lawsuit, there was a good chance that Wegman would not be held jointly liable and that if a jury determined that Wegman was no more than 25% responsible for the worker’s injury, Wegman’s liability would have been capped at 25% of the judgment. Admiral’s trial strategy was not to deny liability, but to downplay Wegman’s responsibility. Admiral, however, never mentioned this litigation gambit to Wegman!

In the Seventh Circuit’s view, this was a textbook example of “gambling with an insured’s money.” And that is a breach of an insurer’s fiduciary duty to its insured.

When a potential conflict of interest arises, the insurer has a duty to notify the insured, regardless of whether the potential conflict relates to a basis for denying coverage, a reservation of rights, or a disconnect between the available limits of coverage and the insured’s potential liability. Once the insured has been informed of the conflict of interest, the insured has the option of hiring a new lawyer whose loyalty will be exclusively to the insured. In reaching its Wegman conclusion, the Seventh Circuit cited the conflict-of-interest rule established by the Illinois Supreme Court’s Peppersdecision. Thus, a potential conflict of interest between an insured and an insurer concerning the conduct of defense is not limited to situations in which the insurer has reserved its rights.

In rejecting Admiral’s arguments, the Seventh Circuit explained that a conflict of interest (1) can arise in any number of situations and (2) does not necessarily mean that the conflicted party—the insurer—has engaged in actual harmful conduct. A conflict of interest that permits an insured to select independent counsel occurs whenever the interests of the insured and the insurer are divergent, which creates a potential for harmful conduct.

The conflict between Admiral and Wegman arose when Admiral learned that a judgment in excess of policy limits was a “non-trivial probability.” When confronted with a conflict of this type, the insurer must inform the insured as soon as possible in order to allow the insured to give timely notice to excess insurers, and to allow the insured to make an informed decision as to whether to select its own counsel or to continue with the defense provided by the insurer.

Looking Beyond Wegman

The fact pattern discussed in Wegman, however, is not the only situation in which there may be a conflict of interest between an insurer and an insured concerning the control of the defense. Under the supplemental duty to defend in a CGL policy, an insured is entitled to be defended until settlements or judgments have been paid out in an amount that equals or exceeds the limits of liability. The cost of defense does not erode the limits of liability, which means that the supplemental duty to defend is of significant economic value to an insured.

The following hypothetical situations (involving an insured covered by a CGL policy with $1 million in per-occurrence and aggregate limits of liability and a supplemental duty to defend) illustrate the economic value of the duty to defend:

  • The insured is sued 25 times in one policy year. In each instance, the insurer acknowledges coverage and undertakes to defend the lawsuits. Each lawsuit is dismissed without the insured becoming liable for any settlements or judgments. The total cost of defending these 25 lawsuits is $1.5 million. The limits of liability are completely unimpaired with $1 million in limits of coverage remaining available.
  • The insured is a defendant in dozens of lawsuits alleging that one of the products it sells has a defect that has caused bodily injury. The insurer agrees to defend. The lawsuits are consolidated, and the costs of defense accumulate to more than $2.5 million. Eventually, there is a global settlement of the lawsuits for $1 million. Thus, a total of $3.5 million has been paid out on an insurance policy with a $1 million limit of liability.
  • The insured is involved in a catastrophic accident for which he was solely responsible and in which four other people were permanently disabled. Each of the victims files a lawsuit and the realistic projected liability exposure to each victim is $1.5 million—or $6 million collectively. Shortly after the complaints are filed (and before there has been any significant discovery or investigation), three of the plaintiffs make a joint offer to settle their claims for a collective $1 million. The insurer and the insured both believe that this is an outstanding settlement opportunity, but the fourth plaintiff wants her day in court. If the insured agrees to this promising settlement opportunity, the limits of liability will be exhausted, the duty to defend will be extinguished, and the insured will be forced to pay for his own defense or rely on his excess insurance to reimburse him for defense costs.

Any insured who has been in the position of defending against either a serious claim or a multitude of smaller claims will understand that the supplemental duty to defend under a CGL policy may have much greater economic value than the limit of liability alone.

In these kinds of situations—when either the potential liability exceeds policy limits or there are multiple claims against the insured such that the economic value of the defense is worth more than the limit of liability—who should be allowed to control the defense of claims against the insured? In prior cases (Conway v. County Casualty Insurance Company [1992] and American Service Insurance Company v. China Ocean Shipping Co. [2010]), Illinois courts concluded that an insurer cannot be excused of any further duty to defend by paying out its remaining limits to the plaintiffs or by depositing its policy limits into court. But this rule does not address the conflict of interest when (1) it is in the insurer’s financial interest to avoid the potentially unlimited expense of defending its insured but (2) it is in the insured’s interest to continue receiving a defense that may have greater financial value than the limits of liability of a primary CGL policy.

Thanks to the Wegman decision, there is now some authority acknowledging that the insured’s right to select independent counsel may exist even if the insurer defends without a reservation of rights. The court recognized that the insurer-insured relationship and the right to control the defense is fraught with potential conflicts. Therefore, it is more important than ever for insureds to protect their interests.

Editor’s note: For more on the insured’s right to a defense, see “Policyholders and the Right to a Defense: Don’t Be Left Holding the Bag.”

© 2011 Much Shelist Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, P.C.

 

A Primer on the Validity and Effect of Waiver of Subrogation Clauses

Recently posted by Daniel R. Bedell of Johnson & Bell Ltd.  a great overview of subrogation clauses which are included in many contracts.

Waiver of Subrogation Clauses: An Overview

Pursuant to typical “waiver of subrogation” clauses, the parties to a contract will agree to waive any rights of recovery against each other if the damage is covered by insurance. Thus, the risk of loss gets shifted to the insurer.

Courts almost always hold that waiver of subrogation clauses are valid because they advance several important social goals, such as encouraging parties to anticipate risks and procure insurance covering those risks, thereby avoiding future litigation. Waiver of subrogation clauses have been validated even in the face of anti-indemnity, anti-exculpatory and anti-subrogation statutes. See Best Friends Pet Care, Inc. v. Design Learned, Inc., 77 Conn. App. 167, 823 A.2d 329 (2003); May Dept. Store v. Center Developers, Inc., 266 Ga. 806, 471 S.E.2d 194 (1996); 747 Third Ave. Corp. v. Killarney, 225 A.D.2d 375, 639 N.Y.S.2d 32 (1st Dep’t 1996). These courts held that waiver of subrogation clauses are not intended to relieve a party of liability for its own negligence, but are instead risk allocation clauses. Thus, the clauses did not violate the relevant statutes.

Illinois Law on Waiver of Subrogation Clauses

There is relatively little case law in Illinois regarding waivers of subrogation clauses. Although the case is over twelve years old, Intergovernmental Risk Management v. O’Donnell, Wicklund, Pigozzi & Peterson Architects, 295 Ill.App. 3d, 692 N.E.2d 739 (1st Dist. 1998) (“IRM”) remains the premier case in Illinois with regard to waiver of subrogation issues. In that case, the Village of Bartlett (“the Village”) was in the process of expanding its village hall (“the project”). Part of the project entailed constructing a new police station adjacent to the updated village hall. The Village contracted with Defendant O’Donnell, Wicklund, Pigozzi & Peterson Architects (“O’Donnell”) to provide architectural drawings and specification for the project. Pursuant to the contract, the Village purchased insurance from Travelers Insurance Co. through the IRM program. On January 28, 1994, a fire occurred at the newly constructed police station, which caused over $114,000 worth of damage. IRM and Travelers paid the Village that amount pursuant to their policies. IRM and Travelers then filed a subrogation action against O’Donnell, claiming that O’Donnell’s negligence caused the fire and sought reimbursement of the monies paid to the Village pursuant to the insurance policies.

In its motion to dismiss, O’Donnell argued that the plaintiffs’ claims were barred because the Village had waived its subrogation rights in the contracts for the project. The Owner-Architect Agreement between the Village and O’Donnell contained the following waiver of subrogation clause:

“The Owner and Architect waive all rights against each other and against the contractors, consultants, agents and employees of the other for damages, but only to the extent covered by property insurance during construction.”

The plaintiffs argued, inter alia, that the waiver of subrogation provisions could not apply to damage caused by the negligent and wrongful acts of the defendant. The plaintiffs contended that the waiver of subrogation clauses violated public policy by encouraging negligence. However, the court disagreed. It stated that “the purpose of waiver of subrogation provisions is to allow the parties to a construction contract to exculpate each other from personal liability in the event of property loss or damage to the work to the extent each party is covered by insurance.” IRM. at 792. The court noted that waiver of subrogation clause “shifts the risk of loss to the insurance company regardless of which party is at fault.” Thus, it did not matter whether the fire loss was caused by O’Donnell’s negligence so long as the loss was a covered loss that occurred during construction. Id. at 793.

The plaintiffs also argued that the waiver provisions violated of public policy in that they act as indemnity agreements holding the defendant harmless from its own negligence. The court rejected that argument as well. It noted that the waiver provisions do not involve injury suffered by a construction worker or a member of the general public but instead, damage suffered by one of the contracting parties due to the alleged negligence of another. Id. Thus, waiver of subrogation clauses do not violate the public policy considerations which outlaw indemnity agreements. Instead, they merely limit the parties’ recovery to loss sustained to the parties to the agreement and only to the extent that it was covered by insurance. Id. at 794.

The IRM court held that the waiver of subrogation clause was perfectly valid and that it applied to the insurers’ claims. Thus, the plaintiffs’ claims were barred and they could not recover the amounts that they paid to the Village. As mentioned above, IRM is still the preeminent case in Illinois with regard to the validity and effect of waivers of subrogation clauses. Insurers need to be mindful of the effect that such clauses may have on their rights.

Conclusion

Although courts nationwide consider waiver of subrogation clauses to be valid, there are circumstances under which these clauses will not be enforced. For example, in order to establish a waiver of subrogation, it is necessary to show by clear evidence an intentional relinquishment of the right. Thus, if the waiver of subrogation clause is ambiguous or confusing, if the clause conflicts with other contract provisions, or if the intention of the parties is not clear, then courts will not enforce it. See Sutton Hill Associates v. Landes, 775 F. Supp. 682 (S.D. N.Y. 1991); U.S. Fidelity and Guar. Co. v. Friedman, 540 So. 2d 160 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 1989); Charter Oak Fire Ins. Co. v. National Wholesale Liquidators of Lodi, Inc., 2002 WL 519738 (S.D. N.Y. 2002) (applying New Jersey law).

Additionally, courts will not enforce waiver of subrogation clauses where the underlying insurance did not cover the loss at issue. See Gap, Inc. v. Red Apple Companies, Inc., 282 A.D.2d 119, 725 N.Y.S.2d 312 (1st Dep’t 2001);Chelm Management Co. v. Wieland-Davco Corp., 23 Fed. Appx. 430 (6th Cir. 2001) (applying Ohio law). This is of particular importance, as an insurer can craft a condition to coverage that protects its own subrogation rights. As indicated, it is common for insureds to include waiver of subrogation clauses in their contracts with other companies during the course of their business. Waivers under those circumstances will generally take place pre-loss. While these pre-loss waivers may be acceptable, it is important for insurers to make sure the insured does not do anything after a loss which would prejudice the insurer’s right to subrogation. A common condition to coverage that protects an insurer’s subrogation rights will read as follows:

“If the insured has rights to recover all or part of any payment we have made under this policy, those rights are transferred to us. The insured must do everything necessary to secure our rights and must do nothing after the loss to impair them.”

A condition like the one above added into the insurance contract will protect an insurer’s right to subrogation in the event that the insured, after a loss occurs, attempts to enter into an exculpatory agreement that includes a waiver of subrogation clause. While there is little an insurer can do about a pre-loss waiver of subrogation clause (aside from the defenses to enforcement discussed above), a provision similar to the one above will at least protect the insurer from post-loss waivers.

©2011 Johnson & Bell, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

Risk and Insurance Management Society – RIMS 2011 Annual Conference May 1-5 Vancouver, BC

FYI from the National Law Review — RIMS Risk and Insurance Management Society’s  2011 Annual Conference & Exhibition will gather risk professionals from around the world for a common purpose: to share experiences and gain expertise. Be a part of this community and connect with colleagues, build new relationships and learn from industry experts.

The RIMS Conference & Exhibition takes place at the Vancouver Convention Centre West in Vancouver, BC – May 1-5.

View the online program or just the session descriptions.

Online registration closes April 1st–REGISTER NOW & Save Big over On-Site Registration

4th Annual SOX/MAR for Insurance Conference 14-15 Apr 2011 Boston, MA

The National Law Review is a proud Media Sponsor of the 4th Annual SOX/MAR for Insurance Conference April 14 -15 in Boston, MA 

This fourth annual conference comes at a critical time for re/insurance companies. Organizations will need to file for the first time their audited statutory statements under MAR in June 2011.

This event will bring together top-level executives to discuss the challenges and requirements when it comes to NAIC compliance for the re/insurance industry.  It will examine SOX and MAR strategies that re/insurance companies can implement to create consistent controls and documentation within their organization. The conference will also include a thorough examination of up-and-coming technological advances that are available to increase efficiency.

By engaging with their peers on these and other critical topics, attendees will leave the conference with a clear understanding of how to approach SOX and MAR to increase performance and effectiveness while decreasing cost and time.

key conference topics include:

  • Evaluate the NAIC regulations for Model Audit Rule and what is needed to reach compliance for June 2011
  • Improve communication between business units to increase performance and efficiency with documentation and controls
  • Utilize information technology to streamline controls, documentation and spreadsheets for both SOX and MAR compliance
  • Enhance SOX and MAR controls to increase efficiency for statutory financial statements
  • Discuss how automated controls can increase effectiveness and decrease cost
    • To Register and for more information – please click here:


    Europe Just Cost Women a Bunch of Money on Their Car Insurance By Switching to Gender Equality

    In honor of International Women’s Day – we at the National Law Review want to point out that every rainbow also has it’s rain as pointed out today by the Risk Management Monitor : 

    Males have by and large run this planet since Neanderthals were drawing on walls in caves. So when we talk about improving gender equality, we are generally talking about things that are immediately beneficial to women. A recent ruling by the European Court of Justice, however, is likely going to cost female drivers some money.

    The court has found that tying insurance rates to gender goes against Europe’s Fundamental Charter of Rights. So come December 2012, insurers will no longer be able to do it. The actuarial science regarding male and female drivers, particularly those under 25 years old, couldn’t be clearer. Young men get into more and more expensive accidents than your women. Still, while the numbers don’t lie, I have always wondered why that fact makes it OK to discriminate.

    Apparently the court agreed.

    Claire Wilkinson of III’s Terms + Conditions blog explains the likely fallout.

    In the past, insurers relied on a 2004 directive that recognized the strength of the evidence for gender-based rates. The average claim for an 18-year-old male in the U.K. totals £4,400 ($7,160), vs. £2,700 ($4,390) for an 18-year-old female.

    The net effect: Women will be subsidizing men for auto insurance. One British insurer estimated that women under 25 years could pay 25% more per year – perhaps £400 ($650).

    The ruling affects other types of insurance, too. Women live longer, so they traditionally paid lower rates for life insurance. (The insurer could earn more investment income off the premium while waiting for the woman’s demise.) So women will see life insurance rates rise, perhaps by 20%.

    This issue is obviously a thorny one.

    On the one hand, equality is good. On the other, the insurance industry just lost a major, effective way to underwrite risks and properly price rates. Claire brings up the notion of credit ratings being used as a rate-setting metric as well, another thing that always struck me as irrelevant to car-driving ability. Again, the numbers there show some pretty definitive trends but, logically, the connection seems like one inappropriate to the policies that drivers are purchasing.

    But what do I know?

    I take the subway to work and have never even owned a car.

    UPDATE: Canadian Underwriter ran a good piece on this development that includes the following insights about the marketplace uncertainty the decision has created.

    The court’s decision will create some uncertainty in the market during the transitional period, says Noleen John, a legal consultant for international legal practice Norton Rose LLP.

    “Insurers will from December 2012 need to apply unisex rates,” said John. “This transitional period is less than that recommended by the Advocate General and means that insurers will need to review their policies and practices as soon as possible.

    “It also seems likely, in view of the length of the transitional period, that insurers may need to use uncertainty premiums until they have sufficient data in relation to the carrying on of business on this new basis. This could result in higher premiums or lower benefits for certain policyholders (female motorists and male annuitants).”

    The decision also may create some uncertainty about the future of other established actuarial factors used to establish insurance premiums.

    “There is going to be uncertainty in the insurance market for some time as a result of this decision,” says Ashley Prebble, insurance partner atNorton Rose LLP. “It is likely that the decision will require the European Commission to clarify the position with regards to other potential areas of discrimination, particularly age and disability.”

    We shall see.

    Risk Management Magazine and Risk Management Monitor. Copyright 2011 Risk and Insurance Management Society, Inc. All rights reserved.

    Not Your Father's Insurance Coverage: Using Transactional Insurance to Drive Business Opportunities

    Posted at the National Law Review last week by Daniel J. Struck and Neil B. Posner of Much Shelist – a review of different type of insurance products that can be helpful in facilitating certain types of financial transactions: 

    Insurance coverage as a commercial risk management tool has been around for centuries, but there are a number of newer transactional insurance products that can actually help drive business opportunities and close deals. Developed in the last decade or so and becoming more widely available, these products—including representations and warranties (R&W), tax liability, litigation liability and environmental stop-loss insurance—are decidedly not your father’s insurance coverage. Rather, these less traditional types of coverage can help facilitate the purchase or sale of a business or a significant business asset by reducing the uncertainties associated with potential indemnification obligations and liability exposures.

    Traditional Insurance Coverage: Still an Important Corporate Asset

    For many businesses, standard commercial insurance is treated as a routine expense in which premiums are the deciding factor in evaluating largely interchangeable form policies. In previous articles, we have discussed why this approach is often short-sighted.

    The types of insurance coverage purchased by most businesses are predictable. General liability insurance protecting against liabilities owed to third parties resulting from bodily injury, personal injury and property damage is a given. Some kind of first-party property coverage for loss to owned or rented premises, damage to inventory and equipment, and resulting business interruptions also is generally necessary. Because most businesses have employees, insurance related to workers’ compensation and employee benefits programs is essential. Depending on the particular business, additional lines of insurance—such as management liability, employee dishonesty/fidelity, fiduciary liability, cyber-liability and professional liability—may be necessary as well.

    For all their differences, these types of coverage all serve as a means to manage risk and reduce the exposure to potential “fortuitous” first-party losses or third-party liabilities, ranging from slip-and-fall accidents at a retail location to a devastating explosion at a factory or an alleged breach of duty by a company’s directors. Although traditional insurance coverage may help protect the financial health and solvency of a business and its individual partners, officers or directors, it does not often operate as an actual driver of business opportunities.

    Transactional Insurance: A Tool for Facilitating Corporate Transactions

    Transactional insurance policies, on the other hand, generally insure against risks that fall outside the scope of more traditional coverage and have the potential to drive, or at least facilitate, certain corporate transactions. Examples include:

    • R&W insurance, which provides coverage for the contractual indemnification obligations resulting from breaches of the representations and warranties of a specific agreement (often a contract for the purchase/sale of a business or a significant corporate asset);
    • Tax liability insurance, which provides coverage for an identified potential tax liability or penalty, or for the liability resulting from an adverse determination in a specified ongoing tax dispute;
    • Litigation liability insurance, which may provide coverage if an award of damages in an identified piece of litigation exceeds a threshold specified in the insurance policy; and 
    • Environmental stop-loss insurance, which may provide coverage for the costs of an ongoing environmental remediation project that exceeds a specific cost threshold.

    Although commercial insurance policies of every type should be tailored to the particular needs of the insured, the levels of detail and specific underwriting and negotiation involved in placing transactional insurance are generally even greater. For example, the process tends to be fact specific and often involves extensive manuscripting (i.e., the negotiation of customized coverage terms applicable to the specific risks insured against).

    But how can transactional insurance facilitate the completion of corporate transactions? Even in the best of times, potential buyers and sellers may find it difficult to agree on price. In the current economic environment, however, distressed sellers may be reluctant to discount the value of their businesses in hopes of a return to better days, while value-conscious purchasers are determined to buy at a substantial discount. Assuming that agreement can be reached on price, the parties must still negotiate the representations and warranties provided by both the buyer and the seller, and then reach acceptable indemnity terms for breaches of those representations. But the challenges don’t end there. A buyer with concerns about the ability of the seller to satisfy its indemnification obligations naturally will want the indemnification provision to be backstopped by a substantial escrow. A seller, however, likely will not want a substantial portion of his or her personal wealth tied up in an escrow account to pay for liabilities related to a business with which he or she is no longer associated.

    In this challenging context, R&W insurance might help bridge differences and facilitate the successful closing of the transaction. For example, a potential buyer can use R&W insurance as a means to avoid relying solely on the seller for indemnification. A potential buyer might be able to make an offer more appealing by incorporating R&W insurance into its bid to reduce the portion of the purchase price that will be held in escrow. Similarly, for a seller that is eager to divest a business and minimize the scope of its continuing obligations relating to that business, a carefully tailored R&W insurance policy may provide a greater level of comfort that the seller will not be forced to pay out of pocket to satisfy potential indemnification obligations.

    The following scenarios illustrate some of the ways in which transactional insurance might be used effectively to facilitate a transaction or to make a particular proposal more financially appealing.

    Scenario One: Show Me the Money

    After spending 25 years building a successful manufacturing business, Jacob Marley has decided to retire and tour the world on a yacht purchased with the proceeds from the sale of his company. He retains an investment banker to put the business up for auction and receives interest from a number of private equity firms, including HavishamCo. Rather than grossly over-bidding its competitors, Havisham distinguishes its offer by including an escrow requirement that is dramatically lower than would normally be expected (subject only to Havisham’s ability to secure R&W coverage). While putting its bid together, Havisham negotiated terms of an R&W insurance policy to insure over the seller’s representations and warranties. The bid prices from the various private equity firms were roughly equivalent, but Havisham’s escrow holdback was several million dollars lower than in any of the competing bids. Thanks to this creative use of R&W insurance, Marley accepts Havisham’s bid and sails off into the sunset.

    Scenario Two: Good Intentions and a Token Will Get You on the Subway

    CogswellCorp is experiencing financial difficulty because its “visionary” CEO has begun expanding the company beyond its core cog-manufacturing business. In order to finance its ambitious growth strategy, Cogswell decides to sell its cog-manufacturing operations. SpacelyCo seizes the opportunity to purchase the operations of a longtime competitor, and the parties easily agree on price. In an effort to close the deal quickly, Spacely proposes a modest escrow of only $1 million. However, the cap on Cogswell’s indemnification obligations for breaches of its representations and warranties is significantly higher at $30 million. Although Spacely believes it is purchasing the fundamentally sound operations of one of its largest competitors at a bargain price, Spacely’s management team fears that Cogswell’s expansion efforts will fail, leaving the company unable to honor its indemnification obligations if called upon to do so. In order to address this concern, Spacely obtains an R&W policy that provides coverage above a retention amount equal to the escrow of $1 million, and the deal closes successfully.

    Scenario Three: The Long Goodbye

    Forty years ago, ApexCo was the world’s largest electronics manufacturer. The company also maintained one of the foremost R&D departments in the world and now holds patents for inventions that are widely used in data storage devices, computer chips and consumer electronics. Over time, Apex discovered that the licensing of its patents was far more lucrative than its manufacturing operations. After being acquired by a private equity firm, Apex shut down its manufacturing and marketing operations in order to focus on licensing its patents and vigorously protecting its intellectual property. Today, the company continues to own a number of shuttered manufacturing facilities and distribution centers in populous suburban locations. There is extensive environmental contamination at several of these sites, which makes them difficult to sell without providing broad, open-ended indemnifications to the buyers. In an effort to control the financial obligations associated with these facilities, Apex seeks the placement of stop-loss insurance that will apply to each of the properties. The underwriting process requires significant due diligence, testing and the preparation of estimates for the remediation cost at each property. Ultimately, Apex is able to secure a stop-loss policy that generally covers remediation costs above a threshold specified for each site. As a result, Apex is now able to market the properties knowing that its financial obligations will be fixed but that buyers will enjoy a level of assurance that additional remediation costs will be paid for under the stop-loss policy.

    Scenario Four: Death and Taxes

    Holding company Jarndyce & Sons consolidated a number of its subsidiaries into a new subsidiary, BleakCo. Based on the tax opinion of its law firm, Kenge & Carboy, Jarndyce believed that the roll-up had been accomplished through a series of tax-free transactions. Eventually, Jarndyce decided to sell Bleak and entered into negotiations with private equity firm PickwickPip. During due diligence, however, PickwickPip’s law firm, Dodson & Fogg, raised concerns about whether the roll-up transactions had indeed been tax free. Despite these concerns, PickwickPip felt strongly that Bleak would be a valuable addition to its portfolio. Because it disagreed with the tax position taken by PickwickPip’s counsel, Jarndyce was unwilling to place the full amount of the potential tax liability in escrow or to provide a full indemnity. Jarndyce, however, was willing to pay a portion of the premium for a tax insurance policy that would cover PickwickPip for any tax liability above an escrow amount agreed to by the parties in the purchase agreement.

    A Strategic Solution

    As these scenarios illustrate, transactional insurance can be used strategically by both buyers and sellers to overcome obstacles that might otherwise make it difficult to complete an acquisition or divesture. It is not, however, an off-the-shelf product. The underwriting often requires its own due diligence, and the terms under which coverage is provided frequently require intense negotiations. Accordingly, whether transactional insurance products might be useful in bridging obstacles to a transaction should be an early strategic consideration. Given the myriad issues and financial interests at stake, it is important that a potential purchaser of transactional insurance pay close attention to the risks for which coverage is sought, the extent to which the proposed coverage terms respond to those risks and the legal effects of the negotiated coverage terms.

    © 2011 Much Shelist Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, P.C.

    Wisconsin Tort Reform 2011: Governor signed the Omnibus Tort Reform Act

    As posted on the National Law Review by Joseph Louis Olson and Adam E. Witkov of Michael Best & Friedrich LLP – implications of the Wisconsin Omnibus Tort Reform Act signed into law today by Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker:  

    Governor Scott Walker signed the OmnibusTort Reform Act (the “Act”) today, January 27, 2011.  The Act addresses several areas of interest for Wisconsin companies.

    Specifically, the Act:

    Limits Punitive Damages.

    • Punitive damages are capped at to $200,000 or double the amount of compensatory damages, whichever is higher. The cap does not apply to lawsuits related to operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated.

    Raises the Standards for Expert Testimony.

    • This Act adopts the standard set forth in Federal Rule of Evidence 702, also known as the “Daubert standard.” The Daubert standard allows the admission of expert testimony only if it is based on sufficient factors or data and is the product of reliable principles and methods.

    Limits the Application of the Risk Contribution Theory.

    • This provision is a response to the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in Thomas v. Mallett, 2005 WI 129, 285 Wis. 2d 236, 701 N.W.2d 523, where the Court permitted a case to proceed against seven paint manufacturers despite the fact that the plaintiff could not prove who made the lead-based paints that he claimed poisoned him as a child. The Act limits the holding in Thomas. If the claimant can not identify the specific product that allegedly caused the injury, a manufacturer, distributor, seller, or promoter of a product may be held liable only if all of the following apply: (1) the claimant proves: (a) no other lawful process exists for the claimant to seek any redress from any other person for the injury or harm; (b) that the claimant has suffered an injury or harm that can be caused only by a manufactured product chemically and physically identical to the specific product that allegedly caused the claimant’s injury or harm; and (c) that the manufacturer, distributor, seller, or promoter of a product manufactured, distributed, sold, or promoted a complete integrated product, in the form used by the claimant or to which the claimant was exposed, and that meets all of the following criteria: (i) is chemically and physically identical to the specific product that allegedly caused the claimant’s injury or harm; (ii) was manufactured, distributed, sold, or promoted in the geographic market where the injury or harm is alleged to have occurred during the time period in which the specific product that allegedly caused the claimant’s injury or harm was manufactured, distributed, sold, or promoted; and (iii) was distributed or sold without labeling or any distinctive characteristic that identified the manufacturer, distributor, seller, or promoter; and (2) the action names, as defendants, those manufacturers of a product who collectively manufactured at least 80 percent of all products sold in this state during the relevant production period by all manufacturers of the product in existence during the relevant production period that are chemically identical to the specific product that allegedly caused the claimant’s injury or harm.

    Limits Strict Product Liability Claims.

    • Under the Act, Wisconsin is now in line with the majority of other states that have adopted the “reasonable alternative design” test instead of the broader “consumer expectation” test. Accordingly, a manufacturer will be liable for damages caused by the manufacturer’s product based on a claim of strict liability only if the injured claimant proves that the product was defective, the defective condition made the product unreasonably dangerous, the defective condition existed at the time the product left the control of the manufacturer, the product reached the user or consumer without substantial change, and the defective condition caused the claimant’s injuries. If the injured party’s percentage of total causal responsibility for the injury is greater than the percentage resulting from the defective condition of the product, the injured party may not, based on the defect in the product, recover damages from the manufacturer, distributor, seller, or any other person responsible for placing the product in the stream of commerce. If the injured party’s percentage of total causal responsibility for the injury is equal to or less than the percentage resulting from the defective condition of the product, the injured party may recover but the damages recovered by the injured party shall be diminished by the percentage attributed to that injured party.

    Toughens State Rules Relating to Damages for Frivolous Claims.

    • In civil cases, a party or his or her attorney may be liable for costs and fees for actions that are done (1) in bad faith, solely for the purpose of harassing or maliciously injuring another; or (2) was without a reasonable basis in the law. If the offending party withdraws or corrects the improper conduct within 21 days of receiving the other party’s motion for fees, the court can decide whether to award actual costs taking into consideration the offending party’s mitigating conduct. If the offending party does not timely withdraw or correct the conduct, actual costs shall be awarded. If the decision is appealed and the appellate court affirms the award of fees, the offending party must also pay the attorney fees incurred in the appeal.  

    In addition to the tort reform provisions outlined above, the Act includes several health care related provisions previously discussed in a client alert dated January 10, 2011, also available here.

    © MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP

    Rise in Foreclosures + An Increase in Mortgage Fraud = More Homeowner Fires

    A recent posting at the National Law Review by Rick Hammond of Johnson & Bell Ltd. highlights some of many problems related to mortgage fraud.  

    According to recent reports, many insurers have experienced an increase in the number of fire claims since the onset of the subprime mortgage crisis.  Allegedly, many of these fires were intentionally set by homeowners facing foreclosure.  Not surprisingly, when homeowners’ monthly mortgage payments increase after their low introductory rates expire or when falling home values and stricter lending practices reduce the possibility of restructuring or refinancing loans, the natural result is an increase in the number of foreclosures and an increase in homeowner fires.

    That’s not the only problem facing the insurance industry.  Insurers are also experiencing an increase in fires associated with the rise in mortgage fraud, which is also running rampant across the United States.  Mortgage fraud is generally defined as the intentional misstatement, misrepresentation, or omission by an applicant or other interested party relied on by a lender or underwriter to provide funding for a mortgage loan.

    Victims of mortgage fraud include borrowers, mortgage industry entities, and those living in the neighborhoods affected by mortgage fraud. As properties affected by mortgage fraud are sold at artificially inflated prices, properties in surrounding neighborhoods also become artificially inflated. When property values are inflated, property taxes increase as well. Legitimate homeowners also find it difficult to sell their homes. When properties foreclose as a result of mortgage fraud, neighborhoods deteriorate and surrounding properties depreciate.

    Legal Issues and Developing Law

    • Insurable Interest by the Insured

    The threshold question in many cases involving mortgage fraud and its effect on insurance coverage is whether the insured has an insurable interest in the property at the time of a loss.  An insurable interest at the time of loss is essential to the validity of an insurance policy.  Hawkeye Security Ins. Co. v. Reeg, 128 Ill. App. 3d 352, 470 N.E.2d 1103 (Ill. App. Ct. 1984).  Generally speaking, a person has an insurable interest in property whenever he or she would profit or gain some advantage by a property’s continued existence, and suffer loss or disadvantage by its destruction. Lieberman v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 6 Ill.App.3d 948, 287 N.E.2d 38 (Ill. App. Ct. 1972).

    To determine whether an individual has an insurable interest in property, a court will usually examine whether an economic benefit or detriment inures to the named insured under any set of circumstances.  In cases involving a straw person, a close examination of the facts might reveal that in every conceivable manner an insured did not contribute a single cent towards the purchase of the insured property or its maintenance.  That is, an investigation might reveal that every payment towards the purchase or maintenance of the insured premises was made by a straw person, that is, the property’s unidentified buyer-in-fact.

    Therefore, a proper investigation would seek to determine whether a buyer-in-fact paid for the insurance, paid the initial down payment, the mortgage payments, and for all upkeep and necessary expenses, and whether he or she paid for every attendant cost for the property.  In these cases, the actual insured will likely not incur economic loss due to the damage suffered by the insured premises, nor gain economically from any recoverable insurance proceeds.  Simply put, the primary question is whether there was an actual relationship between the insured and the insured premises, or whether the insured’s relationship to the insured premises is illusory.

    • Mortgagee’s Duty to Notify Insurer of Foreclosure Proceedings

    An insurer is often unaware of a pending foreclosure on property that it insures until after a fire has occurred.  Must a mortgagee, as a condition to receiving coverage, give notice to the insurer when that mortgagee initiates foreclosure?  A recent case in Tennessee is instructive in analyzing this question (See: U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Tennessee Farmers Mut. Ins. Co., 2007 WL 4463959).

    In this case, a homeowner and insured fell behind on her monthly mortgage payments and the mortgagee, U. S. Bank, N.A., initiated foreclosure.  The bank sent a letter to the homeowner stating that it started foreclosure, but the bank neglected to give notice of the foreclosure to the property insurer, Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company.  Before the foreclosure process was completed, the homeowner and her husband filed for bankruptcy, which stayed the foreclosure proceedings.  Shortly thereafter, the house was destroyed by fire.

    U.S. Bank filed a claim with the insurers, Tennessee Farmers, for the fire loss, but the insurer denied the claim because the bank had failed to notify Tennessee Farmers that a foreclosure had been initiated.  Tennessee Farmers stated that the foreclosure filing constituted an increase in hazard and, as such, the bank was required to notify the insurance company, and the bank’s failure to provide this notice was a breach of the policy’s mortgage clause, which stated:

    We will:

    (a)        protect the mortgagee’s interest in the insured building.  This protection will not be invalidated by any act or neglect of any insured person, breach of warranty, increase in hazard, change of ownership, or foreclosure if the mortgagee has no knowledge of these conditions

    The trial court denied Tennessee Farmers’ motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment to the bank.  The insurance company then filed an appeal.  On appeal, Tennessee Farmers argued that the foreclosure proceedings was an “increase in hazard” under the terms of the policy of insurance, and contended that the bank’s bad faith claim was unfounded.  On the other hand, U.S. Bank argued that commencing foreclosure proceedings did not constitute an increase in hazard, and asked the court to adopt the Kentucky’s court’s opinion in Anderson v. Kentucky Growers Ins. Co., Inc., 105 S.W.3d 462 (Ky. Ct. App. 2003).

    In Anderson, the policy’s mortgage clause stated that the insurance company’s denial of the insured’s claim would not apply to a mortgagee’s claim if the mortgagee had notified the insurer of a “substantial change in risk of which the mortgagee becomes aware.”  In that case, the house was destroyed by fire, and the insurance company argued that the filing of foreclosure proceedings constituted a “substantial change in risk of which the mortgagee became aware.”

    The court in Anderson ruled against the insurer, noting that insurance contracts are liberally construed in favor of the insured: “While we agree that the filing of foreclosure proceedings constitutes a ‘change of risk,’ we do not agree that such a change is necessarily ‘substantial.”  The court then concluded that the policy did not “clearly and unambiguously” require the mortgagee to give the insurer notice when foreclosure was initiated.  The court in Anderson further held that commencing foreclosure proceedings, while certainly a “change of risk,” did not constitute a “substantial change of risk” within the meaning of the mortgage clause.

    The Tennessee Farmers’ court rejected the Anderson court’s analysis, noting that the mortgage clause in the Tennessee Farmer’s policy required notification of “any” increases in hazard, not just a “substantial” increase in hazard.  However, this issue remains a moving target.  Thus, after the Tennessee Court of Appeals agreed with the insurance company and reversed the trial court’s decision, U.S. Bank then appealed to the Tennessee Supreme Court.  The state’s high court held that the bank’s commencement of foreclosure proceedings was not an increase of hazard requiring notification to insurance company under the standard mortgage clause in a fire insurance policy, and the bank’s commencement of foreclosure proceedings was not an increase of hazard requiring statutory notification to insurance company.

    • Mortgage Fraud and the Insurer’s Right of Rescission

    By its very nature, mortgage fraud involves the intentional misstatement and misrepresentation of material information to a mortgagee.  Often, the same misrepresentations made to the mortgagee are also made to an insurer on an insurance application and give rise to a rescission action.  For an insurer to rescind a policy due to misrepresentation, the insured’s statement must be false, and the false statement must have been made with the intent to deceive ormaterially affect the acceptance of the risk or hazard by the insurer.  Illinois State Bar Assn. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Coregis Ins. Co., 335 Ill. App. 156, 821 N.E.2d 706 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004).  In such circumstances, an insurance policy becomes voidable, not void ab initio, and an insurer can waive its right to void if it does not invoke it promptly.

    However, in some states an insurer has no general duty to investigate the truthfulness of answers to questions asked on an insurance application.  Those states have recognized that “an insurance company has the right to rely on the truthfulness of the answers given by an insurance applicant, and the insured has the corresponding duty to supply complete and accurate information to the insurer.”  Commercial Life Insurance v. Lone Star Life Insurance, 727 F. Supp. 467, 471 (N.D. Ill. 1989).

    However, an insurer is generally estopped from voiding a policy for untrue representations in the application if the insured discloses facts to the agent and the agent, in filling out the application, does not state the facts as disclosed to him, but instead inserts conclusions of his own or answers inconsistent with the facts. See Boyles v. Freeman, 21 Ill. App. 3d 535, 539, 315 N.E.2d 899 (Ill. App. Ct. 1974). Typically, an insurer cannot rely on incorrectly recorded answers, even when the insured knows that the agent has entered answers different from the ones he or she provided, if the incorrect answers are entered under the agent’s advice, suggestion, or interpretation.  Loganv. Allstate Life Insurance Co., 19 Ill. App. 3d 656, 660, 312 N.E.2d 416 (Ill. App. Ct. 1974).

    Thus, the agent’s knowledge of the truthfulness of the statements is imputed to the insurer.  Generally, only when an applicant has acted in bad faith, either on his or her own or in collusion with the insurer’s agent, will a court refuse to impute the agent’s knowledge to the insurance company.

    Most laws that are enacted to regulate rescission actions are designed to prevent insurance companies from rescinding policies based on cursory or unintended misstatements by an insured.  However, in cases involving straw persons, an argument can be made that the buyers-in-fact act as puppet masters and typically arrange to have the insureds’ names placed on the mortgage and the insurance policies to shield him or herself from exposure, while still enjoying potential profits from sales or insurance proceeds.  In these cases, a court will likely recognize this deceptive arrangement, and that the buyer-in-fact elicited an insurance policy using the purported insured as a front.  Arguably, a court should order rescission of the insurance policy in these types of cases.

    • Rescission of the Mortgagee’s Right of Recovery

    Most policies’ mortgage clause does not address rescission of the contract, nor does it describe the mortgagee’s rights in the context of rescission, because these rights are, in fact, extinguished by rescission.  Therefore, a novel approach in cases involving fraud in the application for insurance is to file a declaratory judgment action seeking rescission and voiding of the policy, which will possibly render the mortgage clause inapplicable, and asking a court to bar the mortgagee from receiving any benefits of that clause.  Thus, rescission could potentially wipe the entire policy away, and the insurer would owe no contractual duties to either the insured or the mortgagee.  Assuming rescission is granted, in effect, the policy will have never legally existed, and all parties that had any putative rights under that policy would have none.

    Importantly, some courts have held that an insurer’s right to rescind or deny coverage on the basis of fraud only applies to the claims of the insured, not to claims of innocent third-parties that are injured by the insured’s tortuous acts.  However, this argument is inapplicable here, since a mortgagee is not a third party but is tantamount to a first-party insured.  Moreover, contract law governs the alleged wrongful acts of the insured rather than tort law.

    • Increasing the Effectiveness of an Insurance Claims Investigation

    To conduct a more effective investigation when faced with mortgage fraud and foreclosure issues, the author encourages insurers, as part of their investigations, to check the sales history of the insured premises because several sales within a short period of time could indicate false, inflated values.  Also, it is advisable to conduct a title search, checking with the local tax assessment office or recorder of deeds, to analyze the property’s ownership history and to ensure that the insured owns the property.  Interviewing and completing background checks on the appraisers and real-estate brokers that were involved in a transaction are also advisable.

    Finally, review information regarding recent comparable sales in the area, and other documents, such as tax assessments, to verify the property’s value.  Reviewing a title history can help determine if a property has been sold multiple times within a short period, which could indicate that the property has been “flipped” and that the value is falsely inflated.

    ©2010 Johnson & Bell, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.