• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

  • About
    • Events
  • Articles
    • Treaty Tips
    • Special Focus
    • Market
  • Contact
  • Exclusive Content
    • Blog Staff Picks
    • Cat Risks
    • Regulatory Modernization
    • Webinars
  • Subscribe
You are here: Home / Arbitration / Court Decisions / Arbitration Process Issues / DISTRICT OF ARIZONA AWARDS BROAD FEE AWARD WHERE THERE WERE COMPETING MOTIONS TO CONFIRM ARBITRAL AWARD

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA AWARDS BROAD FEE AWARD WHERE THERE WERE COMPETING MOTIONS TO CONFIRM ARBITRAL AWARD

August 31, 2016 by John Pitblado

On March 31, 2016, we wrote regarding an arbitration confirmation fight between the Scottsdale Insurance Company (“Scottsdale”) and the John Deere Insurance Company (“John Deere”) in a reinsurance dispute relating to whether there was a computation error in the award’s calculation. Both sides sought confirmation of the arbitral award, but Scottsdale sought to increase the award, alleging a miscalculation. John Deere prevailed in the confirmation fight, and John Deere filed an application for attorneys’ fees and costs. On July 22, 2016, the District Court of Arizona largely granted that application over Scottsdale’s objections.

The reinsurance agreements between the parties provided that if a court confirmed an arbitration award, “the attorneys’ fees of the party so applying and court costs will be paid by the party against whom confirmation is sought.” John Deere sought all of its fees from the confirmation proceeding, including responding to Scottsdale’s motion to modify or correct the arbitration award. Scottsdale opposed the fee request, arguing that John Deere was limited to seeking reimbursement for attorneys’ fees incurred “solely in connection with its cross-motion to confirm the arbitration award.” The Arizona federal court disagreed, finding that the parties’ agreement was not so limited, although the Court reduced a portion of the award sought due to redaction of time entries and failure to comply with a local rule.

Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. John Deere Ins. Co., Case No. CV-15-00671-PHX-PGR (USDC D. Az. July 22, 2016).

This post written by Zach Ludens.

See our disclaimer.

Share
Share on Google Plus
Share
Share on Facebook
Share
Share this
Share
Share on LinkedIn

Filed Under: Arbitration Process Issues

Primary Sidebar

Carlton Fields Logo

A blog focused on reinsurance and arbitration law and practice by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Focused Topics

Hot Topics

Read the results of Artemis’ latest survey of reinsurance market professionals concerning the state of the market and their intentions for 2019.

Recent Updates

Market (1/27/2019)
Articles (1/2/2019)

See our advanced search tips.

Subscribe

If you would like to receive updates to Reinsurance Focus® by email, visit our Subscription page.
© 2008–2025 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · Disclaimers and Conditions of Use

Reinsurance Focus® is a registered service mark of Carlton Fields. All Rights Reserved.

Please send comments and questions to the Reinsurance Focus Administrators

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.