TIG Insurance Company v. Swiss Reinsurance America Corporation

Background

TIG Insurance Company, as successor to Ranger Insurance Company, and Associated Electric and Gas Insurance Services Limited (together, the plaintiffs) brought a breach-of-contract action against Swiss Reinsurance America Corporation. The plaintiffs said Swiss Reinsurance reinsured all liability arising from six insurance policies and owed, but had not paid, its share of a confidential settlement in an underlying coverage lawsuit.

The plaintiffs were serving a motion for summary judgment. They said the settlement agreement and its total amount were not disputed and were not material to deciding the parties’ claims and defenses. The plaintiffs did not attach the settlement agreement or include the dollar amount in the summary-judgment motion.

Sealing Request

The plaintiffs asked for permission to file a separate, one-paragraph statement identifying the settlement amount and the amount sought from Swiss Reinsurance. They relied on a confidentiality provision in the underlying settlement agreement. That provision generally barred disclosure of the agreement and its terms, while allowing certain confidential disclosures to reinsurers, cedents, arbitrators, and tribunals in proceedings involving those companies.

The plaintiffs argued that the proposed statement would have little significance for public access because the settlement agreement was not part of the court record, the statement would not directly affect the court’s adjudication, and the settlement amount was not disputed. They also argued that confidential settlement agreements are not generally open to the public and that sealing the limited information would protect privacy and encourage settlements.

Ruling

The court granted the plaintiffs’ request. It directed them to file the one-paragraph statement as a separate document because partial sealing of documents was not possible. The statement must be filed so that it is accessible only to the court and the parties to the case.

The clerk of court was directed to terminate the motion at docket entry 62. This order addressed only the filing and confidentiality request; the text does not decide the pending summary-judgment motion or the underlying reinsurance dispute.