Citizens of Humanity, LLC v. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Co.
Decision Date | 06 April 2018 |
Docket Number | No. S-17-178.,S-17-178. |
Citation | 299 Neb. 545,909 N.W.2d 614 |
Parties | CITIZENS OF HUMANITY, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and CM Laundry, LLC, a California limited liability company, appellants, v. APPLIED UNDERWRITERS CAPTIVE RISK ASSURANCE COMPANY, INC., a British Virgin Islands company, appellee. |
Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Jonathan J. Papik and Andre R. Barry, of Cline, Williams, Wright, Johnson & Oldfather, L.L.P., for appellants.
David A. Blagg and Michael K. Huffer, of Cassem, Tierney, Adams, Gotch & Douglas, and Spencer Y. Kook, of Hinshaw & Culbertson, L.L.P., for appellee.
Appellants, Citizens of Humanity, LLC, and CM Laundry, LLC (collectively Citizens), filed a declaratory judgment action in the district court for Douglas County in connection with a dispute in which appellee, Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company, Inc. (AUCRA), claimed it was owed money from Citizens. Citizens appeals from an order of the district court for Douglas County, in which the court granted AUCRA's motion to stay the court case pending arbitration, including arbitration of the issue of arbitrability. Because we conclude that the district court's ruling enforcing delegation of the issue of arbitrability was error, we reverse this ruling and remand the cause for further proceedings.
Citizens of Humanity is a blue jean manufacturing company organized in Delaware with its principal place of business in California. Its subsidiary, CM Laundry, is organized and has its principal place of business in California, and its business is laundering the blue jeans manufactured by its parent company before they are sold to customers. AUCRA is organized in the British Virgin Islands and has its principal place of business in Douglas County, Nebraska.
Citizens purchased a workers' compensation insurance package known as the EquityComp program. The EquityComp program is a workers' compensation program marketed by AUCRA and offered through California Insurance Company. The program is sometimes referred to by AUCRA as a "profit-sharing plan." Under this program, Citizens purchased a workers' compensation policy identified as a "guaranteed cost" policy from California Insurance Company and Continental National Indemnity, which are affiliated with AUCRA but are not parties to this appeal. Citizens' "Request to Bind Coverages & Services" for the EquityComp workers' compensation policies stated that issuance of the insurance coverage was conditioned on Citizens' executing a "Reinsurance Participation Agreement" (RPA). Citizens executed the related
RPA with AUCRA on August 8, 2012. The RPA is the subject of this appeal.
By Citizens' participation in the EquityComp program, and by the terms of the RPA, portions of Citizens' premiums and losses billed by the affiliated workers' compensation insurers were to be subsequently ceded to AUCRA. AUCRA then agreed to fund a segregated account or "cell" held by AUCRA. The amount to be funded into the cell would be dependent on a prospective formula set forth in the RPA that would take into account claims filed against Citizens' workers' compensation policies. This was known as Citizens' "loss experience." Citizens, through its segregated cell account, effectively would be partially self-insured, because it would then be responsible for an amount equal to all of its actual losses under the workers' compensation policies, up to a limit. Excess losses, beyond that limit, would be paid by the workers' compensation insurance, but such experience would obligate the insured to fund the cell in a greater amount.
The EquityComp proposal materials claimed that the "Profit Sharing Plan is not a filed retrospective rating plan or dividend plan." However, the RPA required a 3-year minimum contractual commitment and amounts subsequently returned to the insured or increases in premiums were computed based on past loss experience.
Two types of workers' compensation policies—guaranteed cost and retrospective rating plan—have been described in case law, and we find the following description to be consistent with treatise authority. See 5 Steven Plitt et al., Couch on Insurance 3d § 69:16 (2012). The opinion in Nat. Convention v. Applied Underwriters Captive, 239 F.Supp.3d 761, 769 (S.D.N.Y. 2017), states:
A [guaranteed cost] policy essentially fixes insurance premiums at the outset, meaning that the actual cost of the claims against the policy will not cause premiums to fluctuate during the life of the policy. ... By contrast, a [retrospective rating plan] policy is loss sensitive, meaning that premiums can fluctuate during the life of the policy depending on the actual cost of the claims ....
Retrospective pricing has long been recognized. See American Ins. Co. v . C.S. McCrossan, Inc., 829 F.2d 702 (8th Cir. 1987) (discussing retrospective pricing). For purposes of this suit, we view the RPA as an agreement adding a feature of retrospective pricing thereby impacting the underlying "guaranteed cost" workers' compensation policies. And for completeness, we note that our characterization of the RPA is not critical to our disposition, but, rather, as we discuss below, illustrates that the RPA is "concerning or relating to an insurance policy" under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2602.01(f)(4) (Reissue 2016).
AUCRA has patented its "Reinsurance Participation Plan." See "Reinsurance Participation Plan," U.S. Patent No. 7,908,157 B1 (issued Mar. 15, 2011). See, also, Nat. Convention v. Applied Underwriters Captive, supra. The patent states as follows:
U.S. Patent No. 7,908,157 B1, col. 6, lines 22-40.
The patent further explains that the insured can "have a retrospective rating plan because of the arrangement among the insurance carrier ... , the reinsurance company ... , and the insured even though, in fact, the insured has Guaranteed Cost insurance coverage with the insurance carrier." Id., col. 7, lines 51-54. See, also, Nat. Convention v. Applied Underwriters Captive, supra.
This patented arrangement has been scrutinized and found noncompliant by several state insurance commissions. The arrangement has been deemed in violation of state insurance laws, generally for the reason that the RPA is considered a collateral agreement that modifies the underlying compliant guaranteed cost policy. Nat. Convention v. Applied Underwriters Captive, supra ( ).
The RPA includes an arbitration provision which provides, in pertinent part:
The RPA also contains a choice-of-law clause providing for Nebraska law, stating:
16. This Agreement shall be exclusively governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of Nebraska and any matter concerning this Agreement that is not subject to the dispute resolution provisions of Paragraph 13 hereof shall be resolved exclusively by the courts of Nebraska without reference to its conflict of laws.
A dispute over costs arose, and AUCRA claimed that Citizens owed it...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cullinane v. Beverly Enters.-Neb., Inc.
...court’s decision. AFFIRMED . Wright and Kelch, JJ., not participating.1 9 U.S.C. §§ 1 to 16 (2012).2 Citizens of Humanity v. Applied Underwriters , 299 Neb. 545, 909 N.W.2d 614 (2018).3 Good Samaritan Coffee Co. v. LaRue Distributing , 275 Neb. 674, 748 N.W.2d 367 (2008).4 State v. Irish , ......
-
Milmar Food Grp. II, LLC v. Applied Underwriters, Inc.
...broadly and should be interpreted as being comprehensive of the subject indicated." Citizens of Humanity, LLC v. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Ass. Co., Inc. , 299 Neb. 545, 569, 909 N.W.2d 614 (2018) ; Central States Foundation v. Balka, supra , 256 Neb. at 375, 590 N.W.2d 832.The RPA'......
-
Jackpot Harvesting, Inc. v. Applied Underwriters, Inc.
...); Nielsen , supra , 22 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1110–1113, 232 Cal.Rptr.3d 282 ; Citizens of Humanity, LLC v. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assur. Co. (2018) 299 Neb. 545, 567–568, 909 N.W.2d 614, 630-631 ; Citizens of Humanity, LLC v. Applied Underwriters, Inc. (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 806, 81......
-
Nandorf, Inc. v. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Co.
...mandated findings that courts (not arbitrators) determine arbitrability. See Citizens of Humanity, LLC v. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Co., Inc. , 299 Neb. 545, 909 N.W.2d 614 (2018) ( Citizens I ); Citizens of Humanity, LLC v. Applied Underwriters, Inc. , 17 Cal.App.5th 806,......
-
Carve-Outs and Injunctive Relief in Arbitration Cases.
...v. United Healthcare, Inc., 976 F.3d 1100 (10th Cir. 2020); Citizens of Humanity, LLC v. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assur. Co., 299 Neb. 545, 909 N.W.2d 614 (Neb. 2018); Presbyterian Healthcare Servs. v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., 122 F. Supp.3d 1157 (D. N.M. 2015); Peabody Holding Co......