Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

Fifth Circuit Reverses Decision Denying Motion to Compel International Arbitration

by

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently reversed a district court’s denial of a motion to compel arbitration, concluding that the contract between the parties evinced an intent to arbitrate even if the purported arbitral forum chosen by the parties no longer existed.

Baker Hughes Saudi Arabia Co. and Dynamic Industries Saudi Arabia Ltd. entered into a subcontract related to an oil and gas project in Saudi Arabia. The subcontract contained two arbitration clauses: Dynamic Industries could demand arbitration in Saudi Arabia and either party could initiate arbitration under the rules of the Dubai International Financial Centre’s joint partnership with the London Court of International Arbitration (DIFC-LCIA). The DIFC-LCIA was subsequently abolished, and a new institution was created in its place.

Baker Hughes then sued Dynamic Industries in court in the United States. Dynamic Industries moved to compel arbitration in the DIFC-LCIA. The court denied that motion because the parties’ designated forum, the DIFC-LCIA, no longer existed and the “forum-selection clause” was unenforceable.

The Fifth Circuit reversed. It noted that the arbitration clause related to the DIFC-LCIA provided that a “dispute shall be referred by either Party to and finally resolved by arbitration under the Arbitration Rules of the DIFC LCIA.” It concluded that that language was not a forum-selection clause because it “sets only the rules of arbitration and not the forum.” The Fifth Circuit also held that even if the clause was a forum-selection clause, the clause was not integral to the subcontract and the subcontract evinced a general intent to arbitrate regardless of the specific arbitral forum. Indeed, a separate arbitration provision allowed for arbitration in Saudi Arabia.

Baker Hughes Saudi Arabia Co. v. Dynamic Industries, Inc., 126 F.4th 1073 (5th Cir. Jan. 27, 2025).

Fourth Circuit Applies Supreme Court’s Coinbase Decision Outside Context of Arbitration

by

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals recently concluded that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Coinbase Inc. v. Bielski is not limited to interlocutory appeals involving arbitration.

In Coinbase, which involved an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a motion to enforce an arbitration provision, the Supreme Court held that an interlocutory appeal of a motion denying arbitration “divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.”

In City of Martinsville v. Express Scripts Inc., the city of Martinsville, Virginia, sued Express Scripts and OptumRx in state court related to their purported role in the opioid epidemic. The defendants removed the case to federal court, but the federal court remanded the case to state court. Immediately after the federal court remanded the case, but before the federal clerk mailed the remand order to the state court, Express Scripts filed an interlocutory appeal and sought to stay the case pursuant to Coinbase.

The district court denied the motion to stay, holding that Coinbase concerned appeals from motions regarding arbitration, not appeals regarding remand decisions. The Fourth Circuit reversed. It held that although Coinbase involved arbitration, that was a distinction without a difference and that Coinbase establishes that an automatic stay is in effect when appeals are filed regardless of whether the appeal concerns an order regarding arbitration, a remand order, etc. The court noted that while the stay may not preclude the court from taking any action whatsoever on the case, it precludes the court from taking action “over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.” In the case of an appeal challenging a remand order, that includes mailing the remand order to the state court.

City of Martinsville v. Express Scripts Inc., No. 24-1912 (4th Cir. Feb. 10, 2025).

Second Circuit Vacates Decision Denying Arbitration

by

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently vacated a decision holding that a union could not compel arbitration of a grievance related to an expired collective bargaining agreement.

Xerox Corp. entered into a series of collective bargaining agreements with the Local 14A, Rochester Regional Joint Board, Xerographic Division Workers United. The final collective bargaining agreement expired in 2021 and the parties did not agree to a successor agreement. Xerox subsequently allegedly modified health benefits for certain retired workers. The union filed a grievance and demanded arbitration. Xerox refused to arbitrate and filed an action seeking declaratory relief and to stay and enjoin arbitration. It argued that none of the retiree benefits at issue had vested by the time the last collective bargaining agreement expired, and the union could therefore not enforce the provisions in the final agreement. The union argued that certain language in the final agreement promised benefits that survived the expiration of the agreement and were therefore enforceable.

The district court sided with Xerox, but the Second Circuit vacated that decision. It concluded that certain provisions in the final collective bargaining agreement could “be reasonably understood as guaranteeing benefits beyond the [final agreement’s] expiration or as constituting deferred compensation.” The Second Circuit also noted that to “discern the parties’ intent here, consulting extrinsic evidence of intent may be necessary,” which “would be a task for the arbitrator” “[i]f the Union’s grievance [was] indeed arbitrable.”

Xerox Corp. v. Local 14A Rochester Regional Joint Board, Xerographic Division Workers United, No. 23-634 (2d Cir. Feb. 5, 2025).

Seventh Circuit Affirms Order Compelling Arbitration, Holds Arbitration Agreement Applies to Title VII Claim

by

In Retzios v. Epic Systems Corp., the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals considered an appeal brought by the plaintiff, a former employee of Epic, who was fired after she refused to be vaccinated against COVID-19. The plaintiff’s employment agreement included an agreement to arbitrate “any statutory or common law legal claims … that relate to or arise out of my employment or the termination of my employment.” After she was terminated for refusing the COVID-19 vaccination, she brought an action under Title VII in the district court alleging that Epic was required to accommodate her religious objection to the vaccine. Epic filed a motion to dismiss the action and to compel arbitration based on the mandatory arbitration agreement, which was granted by the district court.

In affirming the order, the Seventh Circuit first noted that the district court should not have dismissed the action but rather should have stayed the matter pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, which “calls for a suit referred to arbitration to be stayed rather than dismissed, when a party requests a stay (as Epic did).” The court then rejected each of the arguments raised by the plaintiff on appeal. The court held that the plaintiff’s Title VII claims were subject to the language of the mandatory arbitration clause of the employment agreement, noting that the plaintiff’s “objection to vaccination as a condition of employment relates to that employment, and her objection to being fired arises out of that employment’s termination.”

The court also rejected the plaintiff’s contention that the employment agreement was illusory, noting that the plaintiff received “at least two kinds of compensation in exchange for the promise to arbitrate: the [award of] stock and her ongoing salary.” The court also rejected the plaintiff’s promissory estoppel claim, finding that the plaintiff had not shown any promise made by Epic on which the plaintiff detrimentally relied. The court likewise rejected the plaintiff’s contention that Epic waived its right to arbitrate when it did not request the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or state unemployment office to dismiss their proceedings, noting that waiver addresses “conduct in litigation” and that there was no evidence of facts that would support a waiver in this action. Finally, the court granted Epic’s motion for sanctions on appeal, noting that requiring Epic to bear legal costs on the appeal would be inappropriate.

Retzios v. Epic Systems Corp., No. 24-1701 (7th Cir. Jan. 24, 2025).

New York Court of Appeals Upholds Web-Based “Clickwrap” Agreement to Affirm Order Compelling Arbitration, Including Threshold Questions of Arbitrability

by

In January 2021, Uber emailed millions of its users informing them that they would be prompted to agree to updated terms of use (available by hyperlinks) in order to continue using the ride-sharing service. The plaintiff, a rideshare passenger who had filed a personal injury lawsuit against Uber in 2020, opened the email on January 15, 2021. When she then logged into the Uber app, she was presented with a pop-up screen including a hyperlink to the terms, a checkbox, bold text confirming that the user reviewed and agreed to the terms, and a “Confirm” button. The plaintiff checked the box and clicked “Confirm.”

Uber’s updated terms of use provided that, by accessing or using Uber’s services, the user confirmed the agreement, and that if the user did not agree, the user could not use the services. The terms also included a prominent warning that the agreement contained an arbitration agreement and that the user acknowledged that he or she read and understood the agreement. The arbitration agreement encompassed “any” personal injury “claim” that accrued prior to acceptance of the updated terms, without exception for claims already pending in court. The agreement also delegated the exclusive authority to the arbitrator to resolve threshold disputes concerning the interpretation or enforceability of the arbitration agreement.

After the plaintiff filed her lawsuit in 2020, Uber did not respond to the complaint. On March 3, 2021, the plaintiff moved for a default judgment. Uber then filed an answer, including an affirmative defense that the plaintiff had agreed to arbitration, and shortly thereafter, Uber sent a notice of intent to arbitrate. The plaintiff opposed arbitration, arguing that the January 2021 arbitration agreement was procedurally and substantively unconscionable, adhesive, and contrary to New York public policy. The plaintiff argued that she never validly agreed to the updated terms and that Uber’s communications with her during the lawsuit about the updated terms violated ethical rules. Uber cross-moved to compel arbitration and to stay the litigation, arguing that its email and pop-up screen put the plaintiff on inquiry notice of the arbitration agreement and that her challenges to the enforceability of the agreement were matters for the arbitrator. The trial and intermediate appellate courts, respectively, granted and affirmed Uber’s cross-motion to compel arbitration and stay the case.

On appeal to the New York Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, the court concluded that, under the Federal Arbitration Act and state law, Uber’s “clickwrap” process resulted in the formation of an agreement to arbitrate and that the agreement delegated to the arbitrator the exclusive authority to resolve all disputes as to the applicability and enforceability of the agreement. The court observed that it had “not, until now, had the opportunity to offer substantial guidance on the question” but that “state and federal courts across the country have routinely applied ‘traditional contract formation law’ to web-based contracts, and have further observed that such law ‘does not vary meaningfully from state to state.’”

The court agreed with the lower courts’ rulings that, under the objective standard that governs contractual intent, Uber’s communications put the plaintiff on inquiry notice of the arbitration agreement and that the plaintiff assented to that agreement through conduct which a reasonable person would understand to constitute assent. The court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that Uber was on notice that she would not consent to arbitration because she had already filed her claims in court and that Uber’s communications were misleading. The court ruled that these arguments addressed only the enforceability of specific terms of the arbitration agreement, not the agreement’s formation as a whole, and did not address the delegation provision. Accordingly, the issues were for the arbitrator to resolve.

Finally, the court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to invalidate the delegation provision or the entire arbitration agreement as a sanction for ethical violations, finding that the record supported the court’s finding that Uber lacked actual knowledge of the pending litigation at the time it solicited the plaintiff’s assent to the updated terms of use.

Wu v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 90 (N.Y. Ct. App. Nov. 25, 2024).