Allianz reportedly mulling a Hartford bid after Chubb rejection

Chubb’s $23B takeover offer for The Hartford has prompted Germany’s Allianz SE to study the feasibility of a counteroffer.

(Bloomberg) — Chubb Ltd.’s $23 billion takeover offer for Hartford Financial Services Group Inc. (The Hartford) has prompted Germany’s Allianz SE to study the feasibility of a counteroffer, according to people familiar with the matter.

Europe’s biggest insurer is discussing its options with potential advisors, said the people, asking not to be identified because the discussions are private. While Allianz views The Hartford as one of the remaining property and casualty insurance targets with scale in the U.S., it’s also reluctant to enter into a pricey bidding war with Chubb because of a lack of synergies between the two, the people said.

Deliberations are in an early stage and Allianz could likely decide against pursuing a deal, which would be transformational for the German financial giant that has mostly stayed away from mega transactions, the people said.

Representatives for Allianz and Hartford declined to comment on the story.

M&A activity

In spite of its dominance in Europe, Allianz has a relatively small footprint compared with Chubb or other peers in the world’s largest economy. A combination of Chubb and The Hartford could further marginalize the German insurer in the U.S., which, like other insurance companies, is battling low-interest rates, slowing growth and COVID-related business costs.

Among other European insurers, Zurich Insurance Group AG isn’t currently considering such a deal, according to a person familiar with the matter. In December, the Swiss insurer agreed to buy MetLife’s U.S. property and casualty business for $3.94 billion. A spokesperson for Zurich declined to comment.

The Hartford rejected Chubb’s proposal, putting pressure on Evan Greenberg to sweeten the offer. A post-bid jump in its stock has pushed Hartford’s market value to $24 billion as of Friday’s close. Chubb has a market cap of $71.9 billion, while Allianz is worth 87.9 billion euros ($103.7 billion).

In a press release, Chubb said: “Although we were disappointed that The Hartford chose not to engage in discussions regarding a strategic business combination, our shareholders demand of us, and we demand of ourselves, that we remain a disciplined acquiror with an uncompromising focus on the fair value of any institution that we could acquire.”

Mergers and acquisitions among property and casualty insurers have been active in recent years. It’s the biggest sector within insurance, and life coverage has fallen out of favor with many groups due to low-interest rates and higher capital requirements.

Allianz’s Chief Executive Officer Oliver Baete has largely avoided major acquisitions since taking the helm. Still, he’s been seeking new avenues of growth, including a 2.5 billion euro deal in the past week to acquire Aviva Plc’s Polish life insurance business.

The German company did pursue a takeover of property and casualty insurer XL Group Ltd. in 2018 before losing out to France’s AXA SA, which paid over $15 billion for the asset.

Allianz in the U.S.

Allianz has a life insurance business in the U.S. and mainly serves large companies in the country in the property and casualty space. It also owns U.S. bond asset manager Pacific Investment Management Co. or Pimco. Buying The Hartford could help expand the business with smaller corporations, and any deal could also help make consolidation easier in the future through synergies.

Among the financing options for such a deal include a capital increase, raising debt and offering stock. The insurer also has excess cash and could lower the amount of its annual dividend or buyback. In November, Allianz canceled a share buyback program that it had suspended earlier in the year as the hit from the COVID-19 pandemic continued to mount.

Specific Technologies Driving Insurtech Investment in 2024

Understanding the Funding Decline The decrease in funding does not necessarily spell trouble for the insurance sector but instead highlights a strategic shift, the report suggests. “The insurance industry, like many sectors, is focusing on the most promising ventures with substantial insurance potential,” the report explains. “Insurers are directing their investments toward key areas and current trends such as embedded insurance, employee benefits, and cyber risk management. This strategic investment approach signals a forward-looking mindset within the industry.” Three Key Insurtech Trends for 2024 The report identifies three major trends shaping insurtech investments in 2024: Public Insurtech Companies: Financial and Growth Strategies The report also notes that public insurtech companies are prioritizing revenue growth as their main goal. These firms are restructuring their financial strategies to boost cash flow and capitalize on rising revenue streams. Their growth prospects are supported by expanding asset portfolios and strong market demand. “Public insurtech companies are focusing on revenue growth and optimizing their financial frameworks to increase cash flow,” the report states. “The growth potential for these companies is driven by increasing revenue opportunities, broadening asset bases, and a robust market for their services.” In summary, while global insurtech funding saw a decline in 2023, the industry’s focus on GenAI, digital process management, and connected insurance technologies is setting the stage for a dynamic and forward-looking 2024.

Business

Insurer Secures Unanimous Supreme Court Victory in New York Choice of Law Dispute

In the world of sports, a clean sweep, a shutout, or a perfect game is the ultimate achievement. In the legal arena, a unanimous decision from the U.S. Supreme Court is equally rare and significant. In a notable legal triumph, Great Lakes Insurance SE achieved a unanimous 9-0 victory in the Supreme Court on February 21, 2024. This victory follows a protracted legal battle that began in the District Court of Pennsylvania, advanced to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and culminated in the Supreme Court’s decisive ruling. Background of the Case: Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Company The heart of the dispute was the insurance contract’s clause selecting New York law to govern any future legal conflicts. Although the financial implications of this case were relatively minor compared to the broader marine insurance industry, the insurer’s determination to uphold a crucial maritime legal principle has significant long-term implications for marine insurance. Faced with the insured’s counterclaims—including allegations of breach of fiduciary duty, insurance bad faith, and violations of Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices Law—the insurer was confronted with serious risks. Such claims could lead to the shifting of attorney’s fees, treble damages, and more, which might normally encourage insurers to settle rather than risk pursuing justice. However, Great Lakes Insurance, supported by The Goldman Maritime Law Group, opted to challenge the Third Circuit’s decision and seek clarity from the Supreme Court. Supreme Court Ruling: A Landmark Decision In a landmark ruling, Justice Brett Kavanaugh affirmed that choice of law provisions in maritime contracts should be upheld by default. This ruling is a major victory for establishing a consistent federal standard in maritime law and avoiding a patchwork of state laws that could complicate marine insurance disputes. The Supreme Court’s decision overturned the Third Circuit’s earlier judgment, which had questioned whether Pennsylvania’s public policy concerns might override the insurance contract’s choice of New York law. By upholding the New York choice of law clause, the Supreme Court eliminated the extra-contractual bad faith claims under Pennsylvania law, thereby ensuring that the dispute could be resolved based on the merits of the insurance claim itself. Significance of the Supreme Court’s Decision This ruling represents a significant advancement in maritime law, affirming that choice of law clauses in maritime contracts are generally enforceable. The decision establishes a clear, uniform legal framework for resolving maritime contract disputes, which will streamline the process and ensure fair adjudication of future insurance claims. Justice Clarence Thomas’s concurring opinion was particularly notable for its criticism of the 1955 Wilburn Boat v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance decision, which had previously influenced maritime insurance law. Thomas argued that Wilburn Boat was incorrectly decided and stressed that a uniform and enforceable set of rules is essential for the development of maritime law. Impact on the Marine Insurance Industry The Supreme Court’s decision sets a “bright-line” rule affirming that choice of law clauses are valid unless there is a strong argument against the selected jurisdiction. By endorsing New York’s insurance laws as a reasonable choice, the ruling supports a more consistent and predictable legal environment for marine insurers. This decision represents a major step forward in maritime law, helping insurers better assess risks, determine premiums, and ensure fair and efficient resolution of maritime insurance disputes.

Allianz reportedly mulling a Hartford bid after Chubb rejection