• 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 / ARBITRATION CLAUSE CONTAINED ONLY IN “SIDE” AGREEMENTS TO INSURANCE POLICIES, ENFORCED IN DISPUTE OVER “RETROSPECTIVE PREMIUMS”

ARBITRATION CLAUSE CONTAINED ONLY IN “SIDE” AGREEMENTS TO INSURANCE POLICIES, ENFORCED IN DISPUTE OVER “RETROSPECTIVE PREMIUMS”

September 8, 2016 by Carlton Fields

A U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York recently enjoined Advanced Micro Devices (AMD), from proceeding with litigation in California against National Union Fire Insurance Company (NUFIC), related to a dispute over premiums under workers compensation insurance policies. The New York court further required the parties to proceed in arbitration in New York, even though the relevant arbitration agreements were contained within side agreements (the “indemnity and payment agreements”), and not in the relevant insurance policies.

In opposing NUFIC’s request to require AMD to proceed with arbitration, AMD argued that the indemnity and payment agreements unenforceable because they were unauthenticated side agreements that had not been filed with California’s insurance regulators. The court rejected AMD’s argument that the indemnity agreements were not authentic. The court also found that the dispute over the legitimacy of the indemnity and payment agreements would be addressed in arbitration, rather than by the courts. The court further determined that since one iteration of the applicable arbitration clauses broadly applied to “disputes arising out of or relating to the Agreements,” the arbitration could include the premium dispute at issue here.

Finally, the court considered whether it should defer to the first-filed lawsuit in California (it was filed three days before the New York action to enforce arbitration). The court determined that even though the California action was first in time, the dispute at hand was clearly subject to arbitration, and the New York court was “uncertain” that the California court had the “power” to compel the arbitration. Therefore, the court ruled that the arbitration should proceed in New York, and further ruled that a preliminary injunction enjoining the California proceedings was warranted. National Union Fire Insurance Co. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-05699 (USDC S.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2016).

This post written by Barry Weissman.

See our disclaimer.

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.