Ainsworth v. General Reinsurance Corporation
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
751 F.2d 962 (1985)
- Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD
Facts
General Reinsurance Corporation (General) (defendant) reinsured Medallion Insurance Company (Medallion). The reinsurance agreement included an insolvency clause that said if Medallion became insolvent, the reinsurance would remain payable to Medallion’s receiver based on the amount of Medallion’s liability to its insureds under their policies, “without diminution because of the insolvency.” The clause gave General rights to investigate claims Medallion’s insureds made and assert defenses in proceedings adjudicating those claims, but it did not give General any right to settle claims itself. When a Missouri court declared Medallion insolvent, ordered liquidation, and appointed a receiver, two companies Medallion insured had unpaid liability claims outstanding. The first company incurred a judgment against it for $485,000 and had a Medallion policy with $100,000 liability limits. The judgment holders sought payment from General as Medallion’s reinsurer. General initially said it could not settle the claim because the insolvency clause prohibited it, but General changed positions and negotiated a $25,000 settlement without involving the receiver. The second claimants agreed to a court-approved settlement of $85,000. Medallion’s ancillary receiver paid the claimants $50,000; the insured company contributed $10,000; and its excess insurer contributed $25,000. General paid Medallion’s receiver $50,000, evidently on the theory that amount represented Medallion’s insured liability to those claimants. Medallion’s receiver, C. Donald Ainsworth (plaintiff), sued General to recover policy limits less retention ($75,000) on the first claim, and $85,000 less retention on the second claim. The court awarded the receiver those amounts, finding General violated the insolvency clause by negotiating a reduced settlement of the first claim and paying only $50,000 of the second claim. General appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Fairchild, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.