Cayman Islands: Captive Insurance and the Perils of Parenthood

The importance of letting go
Last Updated: 3 March 2004
Article by Anthony Menzies

Originally published in September 2003

In law, a captive insurer is an insurance company like any other. A statement of the obvious, perhaps, but nonetheless a technicality that many in the industry have been known to lose sight of from time to time.

Typically, a captive insurer will enter into two contractual insurance relationships, that is to say the inwards insurance, either directly from the parent or from a fronting insurer, and its outwards reinsurance. Even those captives that have been adequately capitalised to bear a large proportion of their own risk will almost certainly need recourse to XL or stop loss reinsurance, in order to preserve the integrity of the security provided to the parent or the fronting insurer.

At the very least, therefore, there will be two links in the chain from the insured parent to the traditional reinsurer, as ultimate risk bearer, and three where a front is interposed. In practice, of course, a captive’s reinsurance programme is frequently more complex than a single outward contract. It will often be structured in such a way that XL cover is superimposed on a proportional quota share treaty, and hence the handling of individual direct claims will impact on both proportional reinsurance and horizontal XL. On any view, there will be multiple parties involved in the structure, and the inevitable opportunity for disputes to arise.

Managers of group or association captives are accustomed to reviewing inward claims with a critical eye. They owe an obligation to the captive in its own right, and in turn to other parent policyholders, to ensure that only recoverable claims are agreed. As such, they can be expected to behave in much the same way as any traditional insurer, and this will often include the retention of outside advisers to assist with difficult coverage issues where necessary.

The same, however, is not always true in the case of single parent captives, where the process is often viewed as a simple risk transfer from the insured parent to the external reinsurer. Under the latter analysis, the intervening steps are little more than an accounting exercise, in which the captive is but a handy conduit through which the risk (or, at least, the excess risk) is channelled to the traditional insurance markets. The temptation to apply this holistic approach should be resisted, particularly when it comes to claims processing, not least because it overlooks the true legal relationships, and obligations, between the various parties.

In the event of a claim, both parent and captive must take steps consistent with an arm’s length relationship, at least if they hope to effect a recovery under the captive’s reinsurance. The paper trail may end up looking contrived at times, particularly where the directing minds of the parent and the captive are one and the same. In those cases, effective Chinese walls should be established, since any attempt to short circuit the process at this early stage can lead to some unfortunate consequences along the chain.

In the first instance, the parent should be careful to notify a claim in accordance with the policy terms. This may be to the captive directly, or to the fronting insurer where one exists. Remember that the front (and only the front) assumes the primary liability to the parent, and with it the credit risk in the event that the captive’s security defaults. That is the reason for charging a commission. If the system fails, the parent will want to look to the front to make good the loss. But the front, naturally, will do everything possible to resist paying a claim under a risk for which it, effectively, never received a commercial premium. The battle lines are drawn, and the parent’s failure to notify the claim can provide the fronting insurer with the handiest of defensive weapons.

Assuming the claim has been properly notified along the chain, the next task is to review issues of coverage under the policy terms. Ask any lawyer to construe a contract and the first thing he will look for is the governing law, and then perhaps the jurisdiction in which any differences in interpretation are to be resolved. Typically, a Cayman Islands captive will exist to insure a US parent, perhaps under a policy that expressly provides for the law and jurisdiction of the parent’s state domicile. The position can be complicated where a fronting insurer is interposed, particularly where the front is domiciled in some other state. Clearly, it is of some importance to ensure that the policies do not contain divergent law and jurisdiction clauses.

Where the risk is written directly by the captive, the policy terms will very often nominate the law and jurisdiction of the captive’s own domicile, for example that of the Cayman Islands. Once a claim arises, it may come as a considerable surprise to many US insureds to learn that Cayman Islands insurance law, based as it is on English law, contains several material differences to that prevailing in many US states. Consider, for example, the case of breach of warranty. The position in Cayman, as in England, is governed by the common law principle that any breach of warranty by the insured will give insurers the right to deny the instant claim and to treat the entire insurance contract as discharged from the date of the breach.

By contrast, the position in New York is regulated by statute, namely s. 3106 of the New York Insurance Law, whereby the right of rescission and/or denial in the case of non-marine insurance claims is limited to those cases where the breach "materially increases the risk of loss, damage or injury within the coverage of the contract". Similar statutory provisions exist in many other of the United States. A Cayman captive that could have denied the inwards claim for reason of a non-material breach of warranty under Cayman Islands law, but does not do so, may well find that its recourse to reinsurance has been prejudiced.

Indeed, it is at the reinsurance level that the more obvious potential for conflict arises. London market reinsurers, for example, will often insist on English law and jurisdiction in respect of the captive’s reinsurance. And even if the contract is silent on the point, it does not follow that the overseas reinsurers have thereby rendered themselves amenable to the captive’s local law or jurisdiction. The common expression ‘as original’ is insufficient to import into the reinsurance contract the choice of law and jurisdiction prevailing in the underlying policy1, and reinsurers are extremely adept at wrong footing cedants by commencing pre-emptive proceedings in their home jurisdiction, seeking judgment against their reinsured by way of declaration as to non-liability.

Reinsured captives must be careful to ensure that any claim they agree is properly recoverable under the inwards policy terms, in accordance with the governing law of that contract. Even where the reinsurance is clearly intended to be back to back with the original cover, the reinsurers are still perfectly entitled to revisit the question of underlying policy liability, and they frequently do. The reinsurance claim will therefore stand or fall on whether the captive was right in its original assessment that the direct claim was payable under its own governing law. The temptation for reinsurers to be ‘wise after the event’ may be difficult to resist.

From the captive’s perspective, this problem can be alleviated by involving the reinsurers in the claim assessment from the outset, and thereby flush out any concerns they may have. Where the reinsurance contract contains a claims control or claims cooperation clause, there will of course be a positive obligation to involve reinsurers from an early stage. The effect of these provisions is to pass control of the underlying claim up to the reinsurers, or at least to require the reinsured to obtain the prior approval of reinsurers before agreeing or compromising a claim.

Compliance with the stipulation is often expressed as a ‘condition precedent’ to recovery, and hence any reinsured captive that settles claims in breach of the clause does so at its peril. It may find the reinsurance recovery is lost, even in cases where the underlying claim is one which would have been payable had the relevant approval been sought when it should have been.

Many reinsureds take solace in the fact that their reinsurance contracts incorporate a ‘follow the settlements’ provision, but again their confidence can be misplaced. Where the clause appears alongside a claims control clause, the latter will effectively emasculate the former2, and even if the follow settlements provision appears on its own, it does not provide the captive with a blank cheque. Agreed claims must still fall within the four corners of the reinsured risks, as a matter of law, and there remains an obligation on the part of the captive, in settling the underlying claim, to do so honestly and in a ‘proper and businesslike’ manner3.

Any captive that agrees its parent’s claims without proper and objective review, or otherwise improperly colludes with the parent in the settlement of claims, will fall foul of this requirement. In the same way, a captive that voluntarily submits to its parent’s jurisdiction, where it was not obliged to do so under the policy terms, will also find itself in difficulty if the court is persuaded that this amounted to an attempt to align its interests with those of the parent to the disadvantage of reinsurers.4

Like many other insurance practitioners, I have written previously in this and other publications on the economic advantages for companies in transferring risk through the medium of their own captive insurer. The benefits are now beyond argument. However, for those who decide to go the captive route, it is important that they understand the business of insurance. In establishing a captive, they are entering into an industry with which they may be unfamiliar, and one which conceals a multitude of traps for the unwary. Few areas of commercial activity have generated quite as much litigation over the years, and this is a reflection of the fact that the handling of insurance claims is fundamentally an adversarial experience.

In setting up the structure, captives and their parents need to do everything possible to minimise these potential points of conflict. This requires tightly controlled policy wordings, which should remain consistent along the risk chain, and in particular free of discrepancies as to governing law and jurisdiction. Bear in mind that the same policy wording can yield very different outcomes, depending on the governing law under which it is to be interpreted.

As regards claims handling, the parent and captive would be well advised to remain estranged. The captive’s obligations under the reinsurance may require it to adopt positions which are entirely adverse to that of the parent, and it follows that too much filial familiarity can be a dangerous thing. Any claims protocol agreed between the parties should respect the independent identity of the captive, and it should clearly specify who is to do what in the event of a claim. Captive insurers, or their outsourced managers, must understand the obligations owed by the captive under its inward and outward contracts, and should be free to consult professionals who are qualified to advise on policy coverage issues under the relevant governing law, without interference from the parent.

Coming from a Cayman insurance lawyer, this no doubt sounds like a covert sales pitch, but it is important to remember that reinsurers will usually reserve the right to inspect the captive’s underlying claims handling records, and they may well deny liability (or worse, avoid the reinsurance altogether) if they find anything untoward. Even small claims that do not, individually, trigger the XL cover on a per loss basis, may well impact on the stop loss or aggregate XL reinsurance, not to mention of course any quota share treaty. It can pay, therefore, to apply the same standing procedure for every claim, large or small.

First Published in International Captive Review, March 2003

Footnotes

1 Forskringsaktielskapet Vesta v. Butcher [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 331; GAN Insurance Company Ltd v. Tai Ping Insurance Company Ltd [1999] Lloyd’s Rep IR 229, affirmed [1999] Lloyd’s Rep IR 472; AIG Europe (UK) Ltd v. Anonymous Greek Insurance Company of General Insurances, ("The Ethniki") [2000] 2 All ER (Comm) 65.

2 Insurance Co of Africa v. Scor (UK) Reinsurance Co Ltd [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 312; GAN Insurance Company v. Tai Ping Insurance Company (supra).

3 The Insurance Co of Africa v. Scor (UK) Reinsurance Co Ltd (supra); Hill v. Mercantile & General Reinsurance Co Ltd [1996] 3 All ER 865.

4 Insurance Corporation of Ireland v. Strombus International Insurance Co [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 138.

The content of this article does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on in that way. Specific advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions