Carrier Not Bound By Statements to Reinsurer

Policyholders often seek discovery of carriers’ representations to reinsurers. The thinking is that if the carrier took a certain position with its reinsurers it must also take that position with its policyholders. Not so, says the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. Irving Materials, Inc. v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18692 (D. Ind. Mar. 10, 2008). There, the policyholder challenged a multiple-occurrence ruling on the grounds that the carrier had made a single-occurrence argument to its reinsurer. The court, however, ruled that the representations to the reinsurer were not material.

California Supreme Court Rejects Discovery of Reinsurance

I was happy to see the California Supreme Court decline to order an insurer to produce reinsurance information. Catholic Mutual Relief Society v. Superior Court of Los Angeles (Aug. 27, 2007). I’ve been representing insurers for more than 20 years. While reinsurance information is always sensitive, it’s almost never probative. In the few instances that I’ve seen it produced in any form, it did not advance the insured’s case. It only caused the insurer pain. Pain is the ultimate goal, and that certainly doesn't justify the discovery request.