What Is the Value Added of an Insurance Broker?
What does an insurance broker do, anyway? Many people – even those who run businesses – think of them as simply people who help them place their insurance, and then they forget about them once that annual ritual is finished. But its not quite that simple, and companies who approach risk management from that perspective are both shortchanging themselves and underestimating what their brokers can bring to the table.
I mention this because most think the value added of brokers comes in trying to pin down the nature of a client’s exposures and then proceeding to try to sell that into the marketplace at the lowest price possible. That’s certainly front and center of what a good broker does. But those of us who have worked with insurers, policyholders and brokers for years know that they often bring hidden, more substantial benefits to the table. This article, on Aon’s general counsel, provides a perfect example. While in some ways it’s a personality profile of a prominent in-house lawyer, buried in it is something more important: the story of a reinsurance product that Aon created with Lloyds to bring immediate reinsurance capacity to Aon’s clients. That’s a meaningful value added, and the type of thing that, behind the scenes, a strong broker can bring to a relationship with a policyholder.
Reinsurance, Arbitrations and the Ever Increasing Authority of the Arbitrator
There has been a literal rush of interesting decisions out of the First Circuit and the Massachusetts District Court in the last few weeks, and I am going to try to catch up and comment on them over the next few days. One that jumped out at me, for various reasons, is a decision on whether an arbitrator or instead a federal court decides the collateral estoppel effect of a preceding reinsurance arbitration between an insurer and its reinsurers. In Employers Ins. Co. of Wausau v. OneBeacon American Insurance, the First Circuit concluded that it was an issue for the arbitrator to decide, and not for the court. There were several things that jumped out at me about this decision that made me want to note it and comment on it.
First off, I tried a reinsurance case in the Massachusetts state court’s business session years ago, which was fascinating, as much as anything, for the fact that it was in court at all. As the Employers Ins. opinion reflects, reinsurance disputes are almost always subject to arbitration. In my case, the dispute concerned money owed under a missing reinsurance contract from the 1960s, and no one could establish either its existence or, if it existed, its relevant terms, including whether it required arbitration. As a result, the case became one of the rare reinsurance cases to be tried, requiring first a ruling over the existence and terms of the reinsurance certificate and then one over the amount owed under it. The opinion in Employers Ins. really is, in some ways, about the vacuum-sealed nature of the reinsurance industry and disputes within it, in the sense of they are always, with extraordinarily rare exceptions, kept locked up tight within a system of arbitrations. It is nearly a purely private dispute resolution mechanism that controls that area of business, and the opinion in Employers Ins. reinforces that point, by the degree to which it emphasizes that the plaintiff could not avoid the arbitration system and move its dispute into court.
Second, the case reflects the simple fact that once a business commits to an arbitration regime, they are not getting out of it. The standards for attacking an arbitration ruling in federal court make it nearly impossible to overturn a ruling and, as the Employers Ins. decision makes clear, even the most creative attempts to get around arbitrating a dispute after a company has agreed to that path are likely to be rejected out of hand by the courts. When it comes to arbitration, companies need to understand that the old rule of in for a dime, in for a dollar governs things: if you agree to an arbitration approach, you are stuck with it and are very unlikely to ever be able to get out from under that approach.
Reinsurance and LaRue, All in the Same Post
Permalink | Instead of posting twice in the same morning, I am going to try to address two distinct substantive issues, one involving reinsurance and the other ERISA, all in the same post, hopefully without turning this post into some sort of Frankenstein monster combination of topics that instead should have been kept entirely separate.
On the first, ever wonder why so many reinsurance companies are domiciled in Bermuda? I thought so. The New York Times has an excellent article today explaining why, and as one might have guessed, it has to do with taxes. As the New York Times sums up the matter:
At issue are federal rules that allow insurance premiums to be shifted from the United States to offshore affiliates — which reduces taxes — and allow the proceeds to be invested tax free, increasing the profit to parent companies. . . .The core of the dispute is an unusual tax treaty with Bermuda. It allows insurance companies based on the island to deduct from their American taxes premiums that their subsidiaries in the United States collect from American customers and send back to the headquarters abroad. In Bermuda and other tax havens, the money is invested tax free. This money is moved, under the law, through the purchase of reinsurance by the affiliates from their parent companies.
Personally, I really like Bermuda and have long wanted to have reinsurance clients there that would justify my opening an office in Bermuda, which I suspect influences my views on this issue, and so I will therefore keep them to myself.
The second is an ERISA issue, involving the Supreme Court’s decision to hear LaRue v. DeWolfe, Boberg and Associates. This case, which I discussed here and here, involves whether a plan participant can sue under ERISA to recover losses suffered only in that participant’s account, and not across the plan as a whole. As I discussed here, it makes sense that a participant can do so and I expect the Supreme Court to rule to that effect. The defendants, in an attempt to avoid the Supreme Court ever reaching this issue, moved to dismiss the appeal as moot on the ground that the plaintiff had cashed out of the plan and therefore cannot proceed with a claim against the plan for losses incurred in the plaintiff’s now cashed out account; whether such cashed out participants can proceed with such cases is something of a hot topic that has been decided in differing ways by trial level judges in the federal system, including by judges sitting in the same federal district court, as I discussed here. Well, Workplace Prof and SCOTUSBLOG are reporting that the Supreme Court has denied the motion to dismiss on that ground and the Supreme Court will go ahead and hear the case.
There, I did it - two items on two different issues, all for the price of one admission.