In the ever-evolving landscape of insurance law, a recent decision by the Supreme Court has set a new precedent that could have far-reaching implications for insurers in bankruptcy cases. In the case of Truck Insurance Exchange v. Kaiser Gypsum Co., Inc., the Supreme Court provided fresh insights and clarity on a significant legal dispute that has been highlighted in some of the largest bankruptcy cases filed over the last several years—insurer standing.
In Truck Insurance Exchange v. Kaiser Gypsum, the Court delved into the rights of insurers, in asbestos-related bankruptcy claims, to be heard in the case and, thus, contest a debtor’s proposed plan of reorganization. In a unanimous decision, the Court held that insurers with financial responsibility for bankruptcy claims are a “party in interest” under the Bankruptcy Code and thus have the right to appear and be heard on any issue in a Chapter 11 case.
This ruling has far-reaching implications that could reshape the contours of liability, compensation and the reorganization process as a whole. Below, we explore this decision in more detail.
Truck Ins. Exch. v. Kaiser Gypsum Co., 144 S. Ct. 1414 (2024)
On June 6, 2024, the US Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in Truck Insurance Exchange v. Kaiser Gypsum Co., Inc., significantly impacting insurers’ rights and standing and, consequently, their roles in bankruptcy proceedings. The Court unanimously held that insurers with financial responsibility for bankruptcy claims are considered “parties in interest” under section 1109(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, which means that such an insurer “may raise and may appear and be heard on any issue” in a Chapter 11 case. As explained by the Court in its opinion, this includes the right to object to plans of reorganization in Chapter 11 cases.
In 2016, Kaiser Gypsum Co. and its parent company, Hanson Permanente Cement, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy due to substantial asbestos-related liabilities. Kaiser proposed a plan of reorganization under section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code, which allows for the creation of a trust to handle asbestos injury claims. The plan distinguished between insured and uninsured claims, requiring different disclosure and anti-fraud measures for each.
Truck Insurance Exchange, Kaiser’s primary insurer, objected to the plan, arguing that the lack of equivalent anti-fraud protections for insured claims violated its rights and increased its financial exposure. The lower courts, including the bankruptcy court, the district court and the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, ruled that Truck Insurance Exchange was not a “party in interest” and thus lacked standing to object because the proposed plan was “insurance neutrality,” meaning that the plan did not increase Truck Insurance Exchange’s prepetition obligations or impair its rights under its insurance policies.
The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts and held that insurers like Truck Insurance Exchange, with financial responsibility for bankruptcy claims, are indeed “parties in interest.” The Court found that section 1109(b) permits insurers to participate in reorganization proceedings, as they are directly and adversely affected by the outcomes. The Court criticized the “insurance neutrality” doctrine, which bankruptcy courts used regularly to restrict insurers’ standing, deeming it conceptually flawed. The Court emphasized that the potential financial impact on insurers, such as Truck Insurance Exchange’s obligation to pay significant post-confirmation liabilities, warrants their participation in the proceedings. The decision highlighted that insurers might be the only parties with incentives to scrutinize and address issues in plans of reorganization, given that debtors and claimants may lack such incentives once liability is transferred to a post-confirmation trust.
This decision marks a significant shift in bankruptcy law, affirming insurers’ rights to be heard on bankruptcy matters, including plans of reorganization, that affect their financial responsibilities. Insurers can now challenge provisions they find unfair or burdensome, potentially leading to more thorough vetting of plans. The ruling may also slow the plan confirmation process, as insurers’ participation introduces additional negotiations and potential objections. However, it ensures that plans are more balanced and protective of all parties’ interests, promoting bankruptcy’s foundational concepts of equity and fairness.
Clients involved in bankruptcy cases, particularly those with substantial insurance components, should be aware of this development. Insurers should prepare to engage more actively in bankruptcy cases, while debtors must anticipate and address insurers’ concerns during plan formulation.
