Close this search box.

The Hartford rejects Chubb’s acquisition offer


The Hartford rejects Chubb’s acquisition offer

Hartford rejects Chubb’s acquisition offer

The proposed deal, valued at approximately $23B, was driven by Chubb’s hunger for small commercial, S&P Global commented.

While the proposal and firm rejection did come as a surprise, John Iten, a director at S&P Global covering the domestic P&C insurance market, said in retrospect the shock shouldn’t have been as large given The Hartford’s upper share level projections.

Less than a week after receiving it, The Hartford‘s board of directors unanimously rejected the unsolicited acquisition offer from Chubb Ltd. The deal was valued at $23 billion.

The Hartford said in a release it would not enter discussions regarding strategic transactions, as such a move would not “be in the best interest of the company or its shareholders.”

The proposal valued The Hartford at $65 per share, which represents a 26% premium based on its unaffected 20-day volume-weighted average share price of $51.70 (as of March 10), according to Chubb. The transaction was to be financed primarily with cash.

While the proposal and firm rejection did come as a surprise, John Iten, a director at S&P Global covering the domestic P&C insurance market, said in retrospect, the shock shouldn’t have been as large given The Hartford’s upper share level projections. To date, The Hartford’s share price has risen 37%, according to The Street.

For the deal to make sense, The Hartford is targeting a share price closer to $80, according to a London hedge fund manager, who spoke on the condition of anonymity as he was not authorized to comment publicly on the proposal. While not confirmed by either insurer, those projections are in line with estimates from S&P Global.

Why The Hartford?

Noting the deal was pretty interesting from the start, Iten said The Hartford’s book of small-commercial policies was the primary attraction.

“That is something Chubb has been trying to increase,” he told “From that perspective, I think the deal made sense. It (small commercial) is not historically where Chubb’s strength has been.”

While there is a strong possibility this deal is dead in the water, Iten did note the proposal was unlikely to catch regulators’ attention. While there is some overlap in certain lines, S&P data showed the companies’ pro forma 2020 market share of 1.9% would rank them 11th nationally.

Asked if the industry should expect more mega-deals as 2021 proceeds, Iten cautioned they are nearly impossible to predict.

“Particularly, major transactions like Hartford and Chubb would have been,” he said, elaborating, “What we do expect to see are small transactions throughout the year.”

This belief is being driven by the flurry of activity seen late last year, primarily in life insurance, as major players such as Allstate and American Financial.

“That has been an interesting development. In most of those cases, the life operations had been part of the group for a long time,” he told PC360. “For all of them to suddenly decide the time is right to sell was interesting.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related posts


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.

Read More

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.

Read More
Try your instant quote