Court affirms $11.3M judgment for Swiss Re

Armonk-based Swiss Reinsurance America Corp. has been awarded a $11.3 million judgment against a Hawaiian reinsurance business.

U.S. District Judge Kenneth M. Karas confirmed an arbitration decision against Go Re Inc. on Sept 3, finding “no genuine dispute.”

Swiss Re America, a subsidiary of Swiss Re Ltd. of Zurich, Switzerland, is in the business of insuring insurance companies so as to spread the risks of major disasters and events.

Swiss Re made a deal in 2019 with California software developer Kevin Pomplun, who had created an insurance app. His Go Maps Inc. program sold and serviced auto insurance policies issued by Topa Insurance Co., of Calabasas, California.

Swiss Re agreed to reinsure Topa.

Pomplun also operated a reinsurance business, Go Re. Inc., based in Honolulu. Go Re agreed to compensate Swiss Re for 40% of any losses.

Go Maps incurred significant losses and Swiss Re paid millions of dollars to Topa, according to court records. But Go Re “never paid Swiss Re a penny of its share of the losses.”

Swiss Re took the dispute to arbitration in 2022, as required by the reinsurance deal. This past January, the arbitration panel awarded $11.3 million to Swiss Re.

Then Swiss Re. petitioned federal court in White Plains to confirm the decision.

When Go Re failed to oppose the petition, Swiss Re asked for a default judgment. Instead, Judge Karas treated the request as a motion for summary judgment.

The goal of arbitration, he noted, is to settle disputes efficiently and to avoid long and expensive litigation. The court is not authorized to review the merits of an arbitrator’s decision, he said, citing legal precedent.

After all, he said, the parties bargained for the arbitrator’s determination of the merits. The court’s role is to ensure that arbitrators act within the scope of their Authority.

Karas found that Go Re did not contest Swiss Re’s petition, put forward a defense, or even appear in the case.

“The court therefore concludes that no material dispute of fact remains and that judgment as a matter of law is appropriate.”