Blog

Demotech Logo

Demotech Investigates Impact of COVID-19 on Surety Insurance

COLUMBUS, Ohio, April 2, 2020 /PRNewswire/ — The COVID-19 pandemic and the historic federal, state, and local government efforts to mitigate its spread has stopped the economy in its tracks. Social distancing and self-isolation may result in the US unemployment rate reaching record levels. The dialogue on business interruption insurance will continue, whether in the courts or to discuss a federal backstop. At the forefront of the issue of the ability of businesses to perform under stress is surety insurance. The insurer, as surety, is the party that guarantees the performance of another party, often a contractor or a construction project. The contract through which the guarantee is executed is a surety bond. As of December 31, 2019, there were 323 insurers that reported direct premium written for the surety insurance line of business. There are various types of surety insurance; however, the insurers that wrote performance bonds may see a rise in claim frequency and severity as a result of unemployment, constrained cash flows, and other phenomena impacting businesses. Direct premium written (DPW) for surety insurance for the 323 insurers was nearly $6.8 billion at year-end 2019. The top 20 writers, based on all types of surety insurance written, accounted for over $4.4 billion, 65 percent of the industry dollar volume. Surety insurance comprised approximately 17 percent of these top 20 insurers’ books of business and was but 3 percent of the books of business of all carriers writing some surety. Despite the diversification within many of the top 20, surety insurance constituted more than 90 percent of seven insurers’ total 2019 DPW. According to Joseph L. Petrelli, President and co-founder, Demotech, the first company to review and rate independent regional and specialty insurers, “By count, the 323 carriers writing surety insurance are nearly 13% of the Property and Casualty insurers reporting to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. With respect to the impact of COVID-19 on surety insurers writing performance bonds, keep in mind that at the time the performance bonds were written, the economy was humming, competent contractors were likely to be at full capacity, with projects in their pipeline. COVID-19 and the response to mitigate the contagion changed everyone’s world. It is unlikely that insurers writing surety insurance will be spared from future discomfort.” A full article along with a chart of the top 20 writers of Surety Insurance by 2019 DPW can be found here. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/demotech-investigates-impact-of-covid-19-on-surety-insurance-301034239.html

Demotech Investigates Impact of COVID-19 on Surety Insurance Read More »

Don’t Fear Insurance Stocks Despite Covid-19, Says Wall Street

Insurance stocks have been pummeled by the Covid-19 coronavirus outbreak. Business will be affected, and Wall Street is starting to cut its forecasts for the companies’ performance, but there is a disconnect between how far stocks are down and how much estimates are falling. That creates an opportunity, according to some on Wall street. “We’re adjusting EPS estimates and target prices for virtually all of the P&C companies under our coverage,” wrote Keefe, Bruyette & Woods analyst Meyer Shields in a Thursday research report. The reasons for the cuts? Lower reinvestment rates from falling bond yields, higher reinsurance pricing, lower economic activity, Covid-19 exposure, stock-market volatility, and reduced share-repurchase activity. It’s an incredible list of things happening all at once. “Loss experience will worsen for travel, trade credit, event cancellation, surety, accident and health, business interruption, and mortgage and financial guaranty,” adds Shields. But it will “improve for personal auto, commercial auto and workers’ compensation.” Overall, he lowered 2020 earnings estimates for almost 30 insurance providers and insurance brokers, by about 9%. Stocks in the sector, however, are down about 29% year to date on average. The share-price declines prompted a couple of upgrades. Shields upgraded shares of Travelers (ticker: TRV) from the equivalent of Sell to Hold on Thursday. And he boosted shares of the reinsurer Everest Re (RE) to Buy from Hold. Shields points out that high unemployment means fewer claims for workers’ compensation. That’s part of the thinking for upgrading Travelers stock. Travelers shares are down about 30% year to date, worse than the comparable drops of the Dow Jones Industrial Average and S&P 500. Recent share-price underperformance is one of the reasons he recommends buying Everest Re. Pricing is another reason. “Despite a markedly worse economic outlook, we expect commercial insurance and reinsurance rate increases to persist,” Shields wrote. Everest shares are down about 35% year to date. There is a wide differential in the performance of individual insurance stocks. Shares of the specialty insurer American International Group (AIG) shares, for instance, are down about 60% year to date. Personal-insurance provider Progressive (PGR) stock is up about 3%. Auto insurance—which Progressive offers—is one area of the industry that potentially benefits from Covid-19, given that fewer cars are on the road. In fact, Shields increased 2020 earnings estimates for Allstate (ALL) and Progressive—two companies with auto-insurance franchises. On Wednesday, Wells Fargo analyst Elyse Greenspan raised her estimates for both companies’ first-quarter earnings. (Shields and Greenspan both rate Allstate and Progressive the equivalent of Hold. Shields says AIG shares are a Buy.) The insurance industry looks like it might fare better than most expect through the viral outbreak. Valuation multiples have fallen too. The Russell 3000 Insurance subindex trades for about 10 times estimated 2020 earnings, down from about 15 times at the start of 2020. The current level is close to the lowest point over the past five years. The disconnect between fear of damage to insurers from the Covid-19 pandemic and actual changes to earnings estimates creates opportunities for investors. They will just have to tread lightly, differentiating insurers by lines of business and in terms of liquidity. https://www.barrons.com/articles/airbnb-hosts-coronavirus-cancellations-51585683401

Don’t Fear Insurance Stocks Despite Covid-19, Says Wall Street Read More »

Germany, credit insurers agree plan to keep trade flowing – sources

MUNICH/BERLIN, April 1 (Reuters) – The German government and the country’s credit insurance industry have agreed to help to maintain insurance cover for tradedespite economic hardship related to the coronavirus outbreak, three people with knowledge of the plan said on Wednesday. Under the plan, the government would guarantee up to 30 billion euros ($32.8 billion) for the commercial credit insurance industry, the sources said. In return, the credit insurers are committing to maintain or even extend their coverage and to pay two-thirds of their premiums to the government this year. The credit insurers, along with the government, would also absorb the first 500 million euros in losses. Credit insurance helps to ensure the smooth flow of trade in goods at home and abroad, especially in the retail sector, protecting suppliers against the risk that customers cannot pay. Germany’s biggest trade credit insurer Allianz-owned Euler HermesALVG.DE declined to comment, as did the GDV insurance lobby, the Finance Ministry and the Economics Ministry. The EU Commission is yet to approve the aid programme. It is expected in the next few days, one source said. https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/exclusive-germany-credit-insurers-agree-plan-to-keep-trade-flowing-sources-2020-04-01

Germany, credit insurers agree plan to keep trade flowing – sources Read More »

13-lisbon-valley

Mine ordered to mitigate environmental harm; reclamation contractor is working without pay

In response to the abrupt closing of the Lisbon Valley Copper Mine, Director John Baza of the Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining has signed an emergency order, according to a statement from the division. The order requires that the operator contains and/or reclaims any and all facilities at the mine to the extent necessary to immediately prevent any imminent threat of environmental harm. If the operator fails to take immediate action to ensure the environmental harms are mitigated, the division will undertake emergency actions to forfeit the full amount of the surety bond. A surety bond ensures monies are available to the division for reclamation in the event the company defaults on its permit. The emergency order will apply until the next Board of Oil, Gas and Mining Board Hearing scheduled for April 22. An inspector from the Bureau of Land Management inspected the site early Friday. A division inspector is now onsite. “Our main objective is to ensure the facility poses no threat to the surrounding environment and that there are no risks to public safety,” said a statement from the division. According to the operator’s annual report, the mine is 984 acres in size and includes four pits, one leach pad, approximately four water process ponds, and several buildings. On Monday, March 23, inspectors from the Division of Oil, Gas and Mining confirmed for the operator steps that will need to be taken to avoid potential off-site impacts. Any work that’s done can only be shutdown or reclamation related; no production work can occur. The surety that holds the bond for Lisbon Valley Mining Company has been contacted while a contractor develops a shutdown plan for the mine. The surety bond ensures money if available for reclamation work in the event a company defaults on its payment, according to the Division. The contractor, like the furloughed employees, is not being paid and has warned state officials “it will be hard to keep up their environmental protection measures if they can’t pay for supplies, fuel and wages,” but they will continue to work. The Division said it could fund the contractor as a stopgap measure and seek reimbursement later.

Mine ordered to mitigate environmental harm; reclamation contractor is working without pay Read More »

construction

How COVID-19 impacts surety bond placement

Placing surety bonds has become more challenging with the social distancing precautions underway with the COVID-19 pandemic, but it is possible to do this electronically, says an association representing insurers who write surety bonds. Surety bonds can now be placed without people physically meeting or mailing paper documents, and they are enforceable by law, Steven Ness, president of the Surety Association of Canada, said in an interview. “Anyone who is seriously engaged in the surety business in this country has the ability to provide electronic bonds or digital bonds,” said Ness. “And if you are not, my message to you is: ‘The world is not going to sit still for you. Get yourself into the 21st century if you want to keep doing business.’” Though surety bonds are provided by property and casualty insurers, they are different from insurance contracts in several ways. Surety bonds are three-way agreements for the benefit of the client’s clients. They are not conventional contracts where one party agrees to pay money to a party who supplies something. With a surety bond, the insurer – in this context known as the surety – writes a bond for its customer, often a construction contractor and known as the “principal” for the purpose of the surety bond. If the principal fails to fulfill the terms of its contract, then the surety (the insurance carrier) might have to make a payment to the “obligee,” which is often a construction project owner (a municipality or real estate developer, for example). Often the construction contractor cannot get the job without a surety bond. One risk that surety bonds are intended to transfer is the risk to a project owner if a contractor fails to finish the job or pay its subcontractors and suppliers. Although Ontario is under a state of emergency during the COVID-19 pandemic, many types of construction projects are considered essential – and therefore exempt from the workplace shutdowns. But some brokerages are facing a logistical challenge now in delivering properly sealed surety bonds to project owners and clients, the Surety Association of Canada observes. “Surety bonds are an interesting animal because they are not contracts,” said Ness. “They are deeds, which means they must be executed under seal. It creates a logistical challenge but we have managed to overcome that.” The distinction is important in “common law” provinces because a two-way contract is one in which a seller gets “consideration,” or payment, for what it gives the buyer. So a surety bond is not technically a contract because the obligee, the project owner, is transferring its risk without paying a premium. Instead, it is the principal, not the obligee, that pays the premium to the surety. Traditionally, legal documents were sealed by making some sort of impression in wax or putting self-adhesive wax on to the document, Toronto lawyer Albert Frank wrote in an earlier paper about corporate seals. Today, several vendors in the market offer software and services that deliver sealed and legally enforceable surety bonds, Ness told Canadian Underwriter Tuesday. If you want to use those, the Surety Association of Canada has several pieces of advice. The electronic bonding process needs to have: Integrity of Content: the parties are assured that the document received is the true document executed and the content has not been changed or altered; Secure Access: Only those who are authorized to view or download the document have access; and Verifiability/Enforceability – the parties are assured that the document was duly executed by the parties identified and that it is enforceable in law.

How COVID-19 impacts surety bond placement Read More »

Does COVID-19 Make a Contract Impossible to Perform?

Wanting to diversify his investments, Ernest “Big Daddy” Bux signed a franchise agreement with GA Fitness last year. Construction by Big Daddy’s contractor Bill Toosuit is scheduled to be completed for in time for an early May grand opening in the new strip center owned and managed by Mawl & Mawl. Last week, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the town’s mayor and the state governor prohibited any gathering of more than 10 people and directed that all bars, restaurants and gymnasiums close. Now that gymnasiums are prohibited from opening, Big Daddy’s business is almost certain to fail, and Mawl & Mawl loses a tenant. If Big Daddy stops construction and buys out his current lease obligation, Bill Toosuit loses his construction project and Mawl & Mawl loses a long-term tenant. Can Big Daddy get out of his lease obligations? And his construction contract? Are there other options to get to a win-win? Legally Maybe and probably. If Big Daddy is looking to set aside or suspend his obligations under the lease and construction contracts, he should first examine them for a force majeure clause, which is addressed here. If Big Daddy’s contracts do not contain a force majeure clause or the clause does not cover pandemics like COVID-19, hope is not lost. Impossibility Defense The Texas Supreme Court recognizes an impossibility-of-performance defense – upon an event occurring that the contracting parties assumed would not occur. Unlike force majeure clauses, a successful impossibility defense must also demonstrate reasonable efforts to surmount the obstacle to performance and, only then, performance is excused if it is impracticable in spite of such efforts. Texas courts have applied the impossibility defense narrowly and upheld it in three scenarios: (i) a person necessary for performance dies or becomes incapacitated; (ii) the thing necessary for performance is destroyed or deteriorates; and (iii) the law changes making performance illegal. Consistent with force majeure clauses, the impossibility defense is not satisfied simply because performance is more inconvenient or economically burdensome than anticipated – increased difficulty or expense is judicially regarded as being covered within a fixed-price contract. The COVID-19 pandemic could cause the first and third scenarios—a person who entered into a contract to provide services could become infected or governmental decrees or regulations issued to combat the virus could prevent parties from performing their contractual obligations. For instance, the recent order banning gatherings of more than 50 people in Dallas County would “make performance illegal” of a contract to host a large party or concert. Businesses affected by COVID-19 might also argue for expansion of the impossibility defense beyond these three recognized scenarios. Some authority excuses performance if there is either a risk of injury to persons disproportionate to the purpose of performance or a severe shortage of raw materials or supplies. And courts may be receptive to expanding the defense, given that a pandemic causing a broad economic shutdown is a rare and devastating event. For those sellers and lessors of goods, the Universal Commercial Code (UCC) may offer some COVID-19 relief. In Texas’s version, delays in delivery by sellers, lessors or suppliers of goods is not a breach “if performance as agreed has been made impracticable by the occurrence of a contingency the non-occurrence of which was a basic assumption on which the contract was made” or by good faith compliance with a governmental order or regulation. Notably, these only protect sellers and lessors of goods from one type of breach—delay in delivering the sold or lease goods. Practically As with invoking a contract’s force majeure clause, stopping performance based on the impossibility defense is risky because, if done improperly, it could itself amount to a breach of the contract – entitling the other party to terminate and sue for damages. Consult with an attorney to assess whether the defense applies to your case. Bottom line: it’s risky and there will be a cost—win or lose. Tilting the Scales in Your Favor If you believe that this COVID-19 pandemic is permanent and terminal, abandon all hope! Big Daddy’s business will fail. Bill Toosuit will lose his construction contract (likely only one among many). Mawl & Mawl will lose a long term tenant. The local citizens will lose the positive economic impact of a new business – and a gym! If, on the other hand, you believe that by working together we can beat this short-term challenge – nearing a panic – consider these: Collaborate. Share the short-term risk. Find common grounds of trust. Then, get creative and flexible. For Big Daddy, almost everyone would agree that the scheduled grand opening of his new business in early May is a bad idea – probably terminal for his business. The closure would significantly impact his landlord Mawl & Mawl, who would probably prefer a multiple-year tenant to a short-term cash settlement, Bill Toosuit would lose the rest of his construction project and cash flow for his workers and subcontractors. This is just one of many legal issues the pandemic is raising. For Gray Reed resources on additional issues, check out our firm’s COVID-19 Resource Center. https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/does-covid-19-make-a-contract-69401/

Does COVID-19 Make a Contract Impossible to Perform? Read More »

swissre-logo

Swiss Re Americas Issues Public Comment on Treasury’s Fiscal Service Bureau

WASHINGTON, March 6 — Matthew Wulf, head of state regulatory affairs at Swiss Re Americas, Armonk, New York, has issued a public comment on the U.S. Treasury Department’s Bureau of the Fiscal Service notice entitled “Surety Companies Doing Business with the United States; Request for Information”. The comment was written on Feb. 13, 2020, and posted on March 5, 2020: Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Bureau of the Fiscal Service’s (Bureau) Request for Information (RFI) on the corporate federal surety bond program. The most important element Treasury and the Bureau can address to modernize and improve the surety bond program is to reconcile the inconsistency between state insurance regulation and the Bureau’s current practice regarding recognized credit for reinsurance and required collateral. Treasury should amend its rules to: (1) allow credit for reinsurance that is provided by reinsurers that meet certain stringent requirements such as those contained in the covered agreements and the recently revised NAIC Credit for Reinsurance models and (2) eliminate collateral requirements for non-US reinsurers from reciprocal jurisdictions that are recognized at the state level as meeting stringent requirements protecting U.S. ceding insurers. The Bureau has a historic view that uncollateralized reinsurance recoverables of a non-US reinsurer may not be counted as an asset for a capital and surplus calculation. This position is out of step with the authoritative sources of reinsurance collateral regulation in the United States, i.e., standards set by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) in 2010 and codified in all states’ laws and regulations. Additionally, it is inconsistent with the purpose of the Dodd-Frank Act, Title V, and recent US-EU and US-UK covered agreements. Thus, the inconsistency exists not only between the Bureau and state law, but also between the Bureau and federal law, and within Treasury itself, between the Bureau and the Federal Insurance office (FIO). A minor change to the application process, data considered, and the analytical methods used in evaluating financial condition will resolve this inconsistency and will not result in diminished protection of US government interests. The Bureau should revise its practices and rules regarding credit for reinsurance to align analysis by Treasury with the analysis conducted by state insurance regulators. Additionally, Treasury’s collateral requirements should be consistent with those it has directed state regulators to adopt and those that Treasury has itself negotiated in the covered agreements. These changes will not negatively affect the ultimate ability of a surety company to carry out its contracts and will not harm the financial interests of the United States or its taxpayers. As the Bureau of Fiscal Service explores ways to modernize and improve how it evaluates the financial condition of companies seeking to underwrite and reinsure federal surety bonds or act as admitted reinsurers, it is important to appreciate that notwithstanding the “doing business with the United States” scope of Treasury’s regulation, it has been historically de facto regulation of both governmental and non-governmental surety bond business. Thus, the scope of consideration must go beyond strictly federal surety interests. Responses to specific RFI questions Because Swiss Re’s comments all center on the treatment of credit for reinsurance, the following should be considered responsive to the RFI questions 1, 3, 4 and 5. The practice by the Bureau of Fiscal Service of not recognizing uncollateralized reinsurance that is otherwise recognized on company statutory financial statements by the states is inconsistent with the primacy of state regulation, inconsistent with public policy enshrined in the US-EU and US-UK covered agreements, punitive to companies complying with state prudential insurance regulation, and it does nothing to further protect the financial interests of the United States or its taxpayers. US public policy on reinsurance regulatory collateral requirements has been clearly articulated by Treasury through the Federal Insurance Office via the covered agreements and establishes that financially sound, well-regulated companies may provide creditable reinsurance to US cedents without the need for 100% regulatory collateral. The decision to move from a 100% collateral system for non-US assuming insurers to a system based on financial soundness, business practice, and regulatory reliability was made after years of debate and has proven to be sound public policy. Since non-US assuming insurers began providing reinsurance without 100% collateral in 2010, there has been no corresponding increase in uncollectible reinsurance. In order to be eligible to provide creditable reinsurance to US cedents, non-US reinsurers must comply with rigorous financial statement/condition filing requirements at the state level and their home country must be vetted and approved by a state as a qualified or reciprocal jurisdiction. A Bureau of Fiscal Service determination of credit for reinsurance on a separate basis than the states undermines the state-based insurance regulatory system in the US and could be the basis for a US state to challenge the preemptive authority of the FIO to enforce the covered agreements. Because the Bureau of the Fiscal Service and FIO both sit in Treasury, the failure of one office to recognize the public policy set by another establishes the argument that an integral purpose of the covered agreements is frustrated and without meaning, and therefore is unenforceable. Further, a second key element of the covered agreements is the recognition of US state regulatory authority and prohibition against local presence and other doing business requirements abroad. If the EU or UK believes a covered agreement is not being enforced, non-US countries will be able to retaliate against US companies doing business internationally. Fiscal Service could accomplish the proper credit for reinsurance recognition solely through the annual letter. However, if a change in regulation for clarity is desired, the following amendment to section 223.9 is recommended (new language underlined): Sec. 223.9 Valuation of assets and liabilities. In determining the financial condition of every such company, its assets and liabilities will be computed in accordance with the guidelines contained in the Treasury’s current Annual Letter to Executive Heads of Surety Companies. However, the Secretary of the Treasury may value the assets and liabilities of such companies in his discretion.

Swiss Re Americas Issues Public Comment on Treasury’s Fiscal Service Bureau Read More »

hudson-logo

Surety’s claims against bank fail [Hudson]

A surety that paid out more than $3.7 million in claims failed in its attempt to sue the principal’s bank because its claims were time-barred, a negligence claim failed as a matter of law, there was no confidential relationship as required for a constructive fraud claim and the elements of breach of trust, constructive trust or accounting were not satisfied. Background In 2009, Andy Persaud, president of Persaud Companies Inc., or PCI, opened an account at the Bank of Georgetown. In December 2010, Persaud established a bonding program with Hudson Insurance Company, a surety that agreed to issue payment and performance bonds on PCI’s behalf. In the course of underwriting the bonding program, Hudson’s agent obtained from Persaud documents showing all banks with a security interest in PCI as well as the promissory note and loan documents between PCI and the bank. In late 2011, Persaud requested an expansion of the bonding program. Hudson agreed to execute an amended general indemnity agreement on two conditions: first, that an additional indemnitor be added, and second, that all funds from contracts relating to the agreement run through a third-party escrow account. Gary W. Day agreed to serve as a second indemnitor in exchange for payment to Day of 1% of the face amount of all bonds issued by Hudson. A few months later in the spring of 2012, Hudson began receiving claims on PCI’s projects. Hudson ultimately lost $3.7 million by paying out claims related to PCI. Hudson and Day obtained default judgments against PCI and Persaud, who is believed to be penniless. Day obtained the assignment of Hudson’s claims against the bank. Day asserts that, had Hudson been aware of the nature of the banking relationship between Persaud and the bank, it would never have agreed to issue the bonds on which it suffered losses. Analysis The district court held Day failed to state a claim and so dismissed his suit, and, alternatively, granted summary judgment finding all of Day’s claims time-barred. With respect to the latter, it recognized that, under Maryland law, an action only accrues when the claimant in fact knew or was on inquiry notice of the alleged wrong. The court concluded that Day was on inquiry notice no later than October 2011, when Day, Hudson, and Persaud executed the amended general indemnity agreement. At that time, Hudson was already concerned about the state of Persaud’s finances and possessed the bank’s UCC filing and the loan documents memorializing the agreement between the bank and Persaud. We agree with the district court’s analysis. The latest Day could have filed suit within the limitations period was therefore October 2014; he did not actually file suit until April 2016. Day’s claim is therefore time-barred. We also agree that Day’s complaint fails to state a claim. The district court rejected Day’s negligence claim on multiple grounds, concluding that the statute did not establish a duty to Day on the part of the bank and that Maryland law precluded Day’s recovery in tort for purely  economic losses. Next, the court dismissed Day’s attempts to sue directly under the anti-assignment act, concluding that Day lacked a cause of action and that there was no authority to support his argument that he may be subrogated to the government. Day’s constructive fraud claim also failed because, as the district court explained, Day could show neither violation of a duty nor the existence of a confidential relationship between Day and the bank, both necessary prerequisites to stating a constructive fraud claim. Finally, the district court properly dismissed Day’s counts seeking equitable relief, noting that Day could not meet the elements of breach of trust, constructive trust or accounting. This analysis is sound. Affirmed. Day v. United Bank, Appeal No. 18-1961, Feb. 20, 2020. 4th Cir. (per curiam), from DMD at Greenbelt (Xinis). David Hilton Wise for Appellant, Richard E. Hagerty for Appellee. VLW 020-2-036. 6 pp.

Surety’s claims against bank fail [Hudson] Read More »

Surety Market to See Incredible Growth During (2020-2027)

Latest market study on “Surety Market to 2027 by Bond Type (Contract Surety Bond, Commercial Surety Bond, Fidelity Surety Bond, and Court Surety Bond) -Global Analysis and Forecast”, the surety Market is estimated to reach US$ 28.77 Bn by 2027 from US$ US$ 15.33 Bn in 2018. The report include key understanding on the driving factors of this growth and also highlights the prominent players in the market and their developments. Surety Bonds are obtained by principal parties to protect third parties from a failure to meet contractual obligations. There are four main types of bonds that serve the different purpose namely: contract surety bond, commercial surety bond, fidelity surety bond, and court surety bond. The most common surety bonds are the commercial and contract surety bond and serve the purpose of protecting the public and private interests. The court and fidelity surety bonds protect against the litigation and theft. Surety bonds of all types cost a premium based on the performance of the business and credit score of the business owner, which is between 1-15% of the bond value. For More Information Ask For Sample Report @ https://www.theinsightpartners.com/sample/TIPRE00002849/ Company Profiles American Financial Group, Inc. AmTrust Financial Services, Inc. Chubb Limited CNA Financial Corporation Crum & Forster Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. HCC Insurance Holdings IFIC Surety Group Liberty Mutual Insurance Company The Travelers Indemnity Company The global surety market for the bond type is fragmented into Contract Surety Bond, Commercial Surety Bond, Fidelity Surety Bond, and Court Surety Bond. Commercial Bonds are general surety bonds that are required by various government agencies state local or federal. Commercial bonds are primarily used by companies or working professionals as per state licensing and permit regulations. Commercial bonds are easy to qualify as they incur low-risk. Commercial bonds protect the general public from that interact with the principal being licensed. The claim is made by someone who faced losses due to the violation of rules and regulations by the bonded principal. The agency checks various parameters before fixing the bond amount such as the number of employees, number of physical locations, and the type of business. Usually, the commercial bonds are annual bonds that are to be renewed every year in some cases bonds are also required for multi-year increments like service tax bond. Further, surety market is expected to experience significant growth in the coming years due to the increasing demand of commercial bonds. The commercial bonds are gaining popularity in the markets of North America and Europe. Commercial bonds are replacing LOC as they provide a better method for risk management. Purchase this Premium Report @ https://www.theinsightpartners.com/buy/TIPRE00002849/ Reasons to Buy: Save and reduce time carrying out entry-level research by identifying the growth, size, leading players and segments in the global surety market Highlights key business priorities in order to assist companies to realign their business strategies The key findings and recommendations highlight crucial progressive industry trends in the global surety market, thereby allowing players across the value chain to develop effective long-term strategies Develop/modify business expansion plans by using substantial growth offering developed and emerging markets Scrutinize in-depth global market trends and outlook coupled with the factors driving the market, as well as those hindering it Enhance the decision-making process by understanding the strategies that underpin commercial interest with respect to client products, segmentation, pricing and distribution. Contact Us Contact Person: Sameer Joshi Phone: +1-646-491-9876 Email Id: [email protected] About The Insight Partners: The Insight Partners is a one stop industry research provider of actionable intelligence. We help our clients in getting solutions to their research requirements through our syndicated and consulting research services. We specialize in industries such as Semiconductor and Electronics, Aerospace and Defense, Automotive and Transportation, Biotechnology, Healthcare IT, Manufacturing and Construction, Medical Device, Technology, Media and Telecommunications, Chemicals and Materials.

Surety Market to See Incredible Growth During (2020-2027) Read More »

Talisman Casualty Denied Diversity Jurisdiction Of Protected Cell Series LLC In National WW II Museum Case

A captive insurance company (usually just referred to as a “captive” in short) is an insurance company that is set up to provide for the insurance needs of its owners, and them only. There are many types of captives, and they can be organized in many ways, most typically as corporations but also as LLCs and some other more exotic types of entities. A captive can be organized — and many are — as a Series LLC. That particular form of LLC is very complex, and consists of a larger LLC (called the “series organization”) which is then subdivided into many smaller units (called “protected series”). Very similar in many respects to a parent/subsidiaries structure, Series LLCs offer certain benefits in the captive insurance field when it comes to insurance licensing and capital requirements. In 2016, the National WW II Museum (New Orleans) ordered a steel truss canopy from Gava Steel, Inc., and paid about $3 million. To protect itself, the Museum obtained a bond in the same amount from Talisman Casualty Insurance Company, LLC, which is purportedly managed (which is different than owned) by Jeffrey Schaff of Louisiana. For whatever reason, Gava Steel didn’t perform as promised, and the Museum made a claim on Talisman’s bond. Claiming that no valid bond was ever issued, Talisman didn’t honor the bond. So, Museum sued Talisman in the Civil District Court of the Parish of Orleans. Talisman then removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. claiming diversity jurisdiction since Talisman was organized in Nevada and the Museum is in Louisiana. As an aside, federal law requires what is known as “complete diversity” of citizenship in order for diversity jurisdiction to apply, i.e., no plaintiff can be from the same state as any defendant. Where a party is an LLC, the court looks through the LLC to see where its members are located. Museum then filed a motion to remand the case back to the Parish of Orleans court, arguing that because Talisman was an LLC, and because its (undefined) owner is a resident of Louisiana, both the plaintiff and the defendant were located in Louisiana and so there was no complete diversity such as would support diversity jurisdiction in the federal court. Talisman made two arguments why complete diversity was present. The first argument was that because Talisman was a licensed captive insurance company, it should be treated as a corporation with its location in Nevada, instead of as an LLC where the jurisdiction of its owner (Schaff) would place it in Louisiana. Second, and most interestingly, Talisman argued that it was a Series LLC, that only protected cell #01 was potentially liable on the bond, and that cell #01 didn’t have any members at all, much less any members in Louisiana — other of Talisman’s protected cells might have Louisiana members, but not protected cell #01. To support this second argument, Talisman submitted an affidavit which said that protected cell #01 had no members. All this resulted in the opinion of the U.S. District Court that I shall next relate. The court took these arguments in reverse. As to Talisman’s argument that protected cell #01 had no members, that argument immediately backfired. The court pointed out that under long-standing law, if an LLC has no members, then it is “stateless”, and a stateless LLC cannot establish diversity of jurisdiction. Since Talisman had submitted an affidavit that protected cell #01 had no members, it had effectively shot itself in the foot on this issue. Talisman’s other argument, that even though it was organized as an LLC, Talisman should be treated as a corporation because it was a licensed captive insurance company, also fell on deaf ears. The court noted that 175 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed corporations to be treated as citizens for purposes of diversity citizenship, but since then the Supreme Court has consistently restricted business entities’ access to the federal courts by way of diversity jurisdictions, to which Talisman’s argument for an expansion of such jurisdiction clearly ran counter. Moreover, in footnote 2, the court pointed out that the Museum had sued Talisman generally, and not just protected cell #01, and Talisman did in fact have its only member in Louisiana such that complete diversity was destroyed. ANALYSIS What this case highlights is that there are many nuances about Series LLCs that are yet to be discovered. While it may be possible to structure things with a Series LLC that could not be so structured with any other form of business entity, all the ramifications of doing that are probably impossible to predict. Here, for whatever reason, protected series #01 was structured in a way that it did not have any “members” in the sense that an ordinary LLC typically would, but that ended up having a negative repercussion as it defeated Talisman’s attempt to move the case out of Louisiana state court and into the federal courts. Yes, Series LLCs are extremely versatile: They are also dangerous. As I have pointed out on numerous occasions, if an ordinary LLC is a Cessna 172 with few systems and controls, a Series LLC is a 747 with hundreds of systems and controls thus making it very easy for a fatal mistake to be made. Or, as my friend and colleague Tom Rutledge is so fond of pointing out, for most folks the creation of a Series LLC is like giving an Uzi to a three-year old. On a more practical note, Talisman’s argument that protected series #01 did not have any members is probably technically incorrect, for the reason that in the absence of members the series organization itself is the member, in this case being Talisman the main company. Thus, the court could probably have correctly held that protected series #01’s member was Talisman, and Talisman’s member was Schaff, and so therefore protected series #01 was located in Louisiana for purposes of testing diversity jurisdiction. An alternative construct would be that without members, protected series #01

Talisman Casualty Denied Diversity Jurisdiction Of Protected Cell Series LLC In National WW II Museum Case Read More »

Scroll to Top
Document