In 2009, the parties in this matter were ordered to proceed in arbitration, pursuant to the terms of an arbitration clause contained in an insurance policy which was the subject of the dispute. Each side selected a party-appointed arbitrator, but the two arbitrators were unable to reach agreement on an umpire. The arbitration agreement provided that if the party-arbitrators could not agree, then “either [arbitrator] or either of the parties may apply to the appointer for appointment of a third arbitrator.” The ‘appointer’ was further defined as the President of the Chartered Insurance Institute or the Vice President of the Institute if the President is unavailable.
Despite this language, the Petitioner in this case alleged that an ambiguity existed in the process and requested that the Court establish a method for the appointment of the third arbitrator. The Court declined to do so, finding that the agreement “set forth a clear method.” As such, the Court denied the motion and dismissed the matter sua sponte. R.A. Wilson & Assoc. v. Certain Interest Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, 10-cv-2232 (USDC EDNY May 26, 2010)
This post written by Lynn Hawkins.