Court Sides With Insurers in Fight Over Captive Insurance Settlement Costs
In 2014, two individuals sued Chemical Solvents for bodily injury caused by exposure to chemicals. The company then tendered the defense to its insurers, Greenwich Insurance Company and Illinois National Insurance Company. The insurers settled, despite Chemical Solvent believing it could successfully defend the case.
This led to Chemical Solvents believing the insurers engaged in “an underhanded attempt to structure the settlement such that a substantial portion of the settlement costs would fall to Chemical Solvents’ separate membership in a group captive.”
Chemical Solvents’ group captive, Alembic Inc., also had its own reinsurance contract with Illinois National.
What happened was as such: Chemical Solvents paid premium into Alembic’s insurance pool, where Alembic held a portion in escrow in a redemption account belonging to Chemical Solvents. When Illinois National paid the $2.9 million to settle the underlying bodily injury lawsuit, it invoiced Alembic for $2.7 million. Alembic depleted Chemical Solvents’ redemption account to pay the invoice, leaving the company with a negative balance.
Chemical Solvents sued Greenwich and Illinois National for declaratory judgment, bad-faith claims handling, and breach of contract. Chemical Solvents alleged that the insurers structured the settlement in a way that resulted in it paying a disproportionate share of the settlement sum.
In the district court, the bad-faith claim was made separate from the breach-of-contract and declaratory judgment claims. The district court then granted summary judgment to Greenwich and Illinois National on the bad-faith claim without allowing Chemical Solvents to obtain discovery on that claim.
Chemical Solvents’ appealed in Chem. Solvents, Inc. v. Greenwich Ins. Co., No. 25-3366, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 26538 (6th Cir. Oct. 9, 2025).
However, the appeals court affirmed the decision of the district court, noting that “no amount of discovery would change the fact that Greenwich and Illinois National settled the underlying claim within policy limits. So the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Chemical Solvents’s Rule 56(d) motion.” &

