Patton Boggs Reinsurance Newsletter - December 2012: Connecticut Appellate Court Rules That a Commutation Agreement Terminated Reinsurer’s Obligations to Cedent


Trenwick Am. Reinsurance Corp. v. W.R. Berkley Corp., 54 A.3d 209 (Conn. App. Ct. 2012).

A Connecticut appellate court affirmed a trial court judgment holding that an agreement between the reinsurer and the cedent commuted their prior reinsurance contract.  The parties originally entered a reinsurance contract explicitly providing for the reinsurer to accept a portion of the cedent’s overall losses in exchange for part of the premiums the cedent collected.  Subsequent to this reinsurance contract, the parties entered a commutation agreement.  The commutation agreement, by its express terms, terminated all prior “reinsurance agreements” between the parties.  The commutation agreement defined “reinsurance agreements” as contracts in which a reinsurer reinsures certain liabilities of the cedent.  Despite the commutation agreement, the parties, for four years, continued exchanging reinsurance payments for premiums, as per the terms of the original reinsurance contract.  Then, the reinsurer terminated payments citing the global language of the commutation agreement and filed suit seeking restitution for the amounts unnecessarily paid to the cedent.  The cedent argued that the commutation agreement should be reformed because the parties were mistaken as to whether the original reinsurance contract was commuted. 

The court refused to reform the contract because the parties agreed to an unambiguous commutation agreement terminating the original reinsurance contract.  The court bound the cedent to the commutation agreement because the cedent’s experienced officer drafted the commutation agreement with the help of counsel, and the clear language of the agreement terminated all prior reinsurance contracts.  Moreover, the commutation agreement was not ambiguous when, by its terms, it terminated all “reinsurance agreements.”  The commutation agreement’s definition of reinsurance as agreements where a reinsurer reinsures certain liabilities of an insurer clearly encompassed the parties’ prior reinsurance contract.

The court also affirmed the denial of restitution because both parties for four years performed their respective obligations under the contract notwithstanding the commutation agreement.  Because there was no evidentiary foundation for a court to have determined that one party had been unjustly enriched at the expense of the other, restitution was not appropriate.

Written by:

Published In:

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Squire Patton Boggs | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »


Squire Patton Boggs has launched to combine the strength, influence and resources of Squire Sanders... View Profile »

Follow Squire Patton Boggs:

Reporters on Deadline

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.