Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) governs parties’ initial disclosures in litigation in federal courts. Among the things Rule 26 mandates must be disclosed are “any insurance agreement under which an insurance business may be liable to satisfy all or part of a possible judgment in the action or to indemnify or reimburse for payments made to satisfy the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(iv). In cases involving insurance companies as insurers, the question that often arises is whether the requirement of subsection iv covers reinsurance agreements. As with many things, that depends.

The weight of judicial authority suggests that, as a general rule, the Rule’s “any insurance agreement” language is broad enough to require the disclosure of reinsurance agreements as part of the insurer’s initial disclosures. As one federal court has noted, however, “there is no true consensus either for or against producing reinsurance information.” Summit Towers Condominium Ass’n. v. QBE Ins. Corp., 2012 WL 1440894 *4 (S.D. Fla. April 4, 2012). While there may be no true consensus, the relevant federal case law suggests that, in general, in coverage actions, reinsurance agreements themselves must be disclosed as a part of the party-insurer’s initial disclosures. See, e.g., Isilon Sys., Inc. v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., No. C10-1392MJP, 2012 WL 503852, at *3 (W.D. Wa. Feb. 15, 2012) (“With respect to reinsurance, the reinsurance policies themselves are discoverable under Federal Rule 26(a)(1)[]. The rule is absolute and does not require a showing of relevance.”); Lyon v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co., No. CIV 09-5070-JLV, 2011 WL 124629, at *18 (D.S.D. Jan. 14, 2011); Suffolk Fed. Credit Union v. CUMIS Ins. Society, Inc., 270 F.R.D. 141, 142–143 (E.D.N.Y. 2010); Hartman v. Am. Red Cross, No. 09-1302, 2010 WL 1882002, at *2 (C.D. Ill. May 11, 2010) (“This Court has previously held that reinsurance agreements are discoverable and, in fact, must be produced as part of initial disclosures under Rule 26(a)(1) . . . The majority of District Courts to have considered the question agree…”); Imperial Trading Co., Inc. v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am., No. 06-4262, 2009 WL 1247122, at *2 (E.D. La. May 5, 2009).