Global Reinsurance Corp. of Am. v. Century Indem. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 08711

Dispute arises from facultative reinsurance certificates (e.g., "Certificate X") where reinsurer agreed to indemnify cedent for losses in excess of cedent retention up to a stated per-occurrence limit.
Underlying liability policies may require insurer to pay or provide defense costs to insureds; question is whether those defense or expense payments count toward the reinsurer's per-occurrence limit.
Global (reinsurer) was billed by Century (cedent/insurer) $327,149 under Certificate X: $82,627 loss and $244,522 expense; Global argued total obligation capped at $250,000, Century argued cap applied only to losses, not expenses.
Second Circuit certified whether this Court’s 2004 decision in Excess imposed a rule or presumption that a per-occurrence cap is expense-inclusive in facultative reinsurance.
The Court framed the issue narrowly as one of contract interpretation in facultative reinsurance and accepted certification to resolve whether Excess created a blanket rule.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Excess established a rule/presumption that a per-occurrence liability cap in a facultative reinsurance certificate limits total reinsurer exposure (including defense/expense payments)	Excess imposes an expense-inclusive presumption: per-occurrence limit caps all reinsurer obligations	Limit applies only to indemnity (loss) payments; expenses (e.g., defense costs) are separate unless the certificate unambiguously includes them	Held: No blanket rule or presumption. Excess did not create a per-occurrence, expense-inclusive presumption; apply ordinary contract interpretation to each certificate

Excess Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Factory Mut. Ins. Co., 3 N.Y.3d 577 (2004) (addressed whether reinsurer's obligation for loss adjustment expenses was capped by policy limit and held the limit was expense-inclusive in that contract)
Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London, 96 N.Y.2d 583 (2001) (principle of reading reinsurance agreements as an integrated whole and giving meaning to all terms)
Matter of Union Indem. Ins. Co. of N.Y., 89 N.Y.2d 94 (1996) (general description of reinsurance as indemnity relationship)
Sumitomo Marine & Fire Ins. Co. v. Cologne Reins. Co. of Am., 75 N.Y.2d 295 (1990) (distinction between treaty and facultative reinsurance and certificate practice)
Unigard Sec. Ins. Co. v. North River Ins. Co., 79 N.Y.2d 576 (1992) (reinsurance governed by general contract principles)
Greenfield v. Philles Records, 98 N.Y.2d 562 (2002) (clear and unambiguous contracts must be enforced according to plain meaning)