Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

You are here: Home / Archives for Alex Silverman

Alex Silverman

Court Finds Pre-Hearing Nonparty Deposition Subpoenas Permitted by FAA, and Rule 45 Territorial Limit Not a Bar for Virtual Deposition

by

Nonparty Lawrence Satz received an arbitral subpoena in a proceeding between International Seaway Trading Corp. and Target Corp. Satz was a former owner of Seaway. The subpoena — the second issued to Satz during the proceeding — sought documents and virtual deposition testimony about certain issues he had refused to discuss at his first deposition. Before the second deposition, Satz moved to quash the subpoena on three grounds, each of which was rejected.

First, he claimed the arbitrator lacked the authority to issue a nonparty deposition subpoena before the arbitration hearing. In In re Security Life Insurance Company of America, 228 F.3d 865 (8th Cir. 2000), the Eighth Circuit held that section 7 of the Federal Arbitration Act implicitly authorizes arbitrators to issue pre-hearing document subpoenas, but did not reach the issue of pre-hearing deposition subpoenas. Despite decisions from various other circuit courts of appeal that section 7 does not authorize pre-hearing nonparty discovery, including cases expressly rejecting Security Life, the Minnesota district court declined to follow those other cases. Instead, it held that under Security Life, arbitrators are authorized to issue pre-hearing deposition subpoenas, finding no meaningful distinction between the reasoning for allowing such subpoenas for written discovery, but not depositions. Satz next argued the subpoena is unenforceable because it did not comply with the 100-mile territorial limit imposed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45. But the court was unpersuaded, finding Rule 45 now allows service of subpoenas anywhere in the United States and, perhaps more importantly, that the distance limitation for holding the deposition does not bar enforcement of a subpoena for a virtual deposition that Satz could attend from home. Finally, the court rejected Satz’s relevance and burden arguments, noting both issues were already considered by the arbitrator and that the court would not second-guess the arbitrator’s conclusions. 

International Seaway Trading Corp. v. Target Corp., No. 0:20-mc-00086 (D. Minn. Feb. 22, 2021).

Tenth Circuit Agrees Arbitration Award Issued Absent an Arbitration Agreement Was a “Farce,” Orders Sanctions Against Pro Se Petitioner

by

Petitioner James Wicker appealed an order dismissing his application to confirm a $2 million arbitration award issued in his favor against respondents Bayview Loan Services LLC and U.S. Bank, N.A. Wicker obtained the award after the respondents failed to respond to his “binding self-executing irrevocable” counteroffer containing certain “scattered and incoherent” references to arbitration. The district court dismissed Wicker’s effort to confirm the award, finding the arbitration was “bogus” and the award was a “farce” absent an agreement to arbitrate. On appeal, Wicker claimed the district court usurped the arbitrator’s authority to interpret the agreement between the parties. The Tenth Circuit disagreed, finding that Wicker ignored case law establishing that it is for the court, in the first instance, to decide whether the parties agreed to arbitrate. The court also emphasized Wicker’s failure to cite authority that failure to respond to a counteroffer created a contract. As such, the district court’s order was affirmed. Moreover, although Wicker was pro se, finding his appeal was frivolous, the Tenth Circuit granted the respondents’ motion for sanctions and ordered Wicker to pay double appellate costs.

Wicker v. Bayview Loan Services, LLC, No. 19-4169 (10th Cir. Jan. 27, 2021).

New York Federal Court Grants $12M Foreign Arbitration Award Under New York Convention

by

The petitioner sought confirmation of an international arbitration award issued in its favor by the Society of Maritime Arbitrators. The petitioner and the respondent had entered into an agreement for the petitioner to charter a vessel to transport iron ore. The respondent objected to the arbitration in part on the ground that the parties’ agreement was procured by fraud and therefore void. The panel ruled in the petitioner’s favor and issued a final award of more than $12 million plus interest, finding no evidence of fraud or corruption. In opposition to the motion to confirm the award, the respondent argued that the panel lacked jurisdiction to arbitrate the dispute; that the award violated article V.1(c) of the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York Convention); and that the award violated article V.2(b) of the New York Convention because it was procured by corruption and thus enforcement would be against U.S. public policy.

Article V of the New York Convention sets forth seven grounds upon which a court may refuse to enforce a foreign arbitration award. The court acknowledged that district courts are “strictly limited” to those seven defenses in determining whether to confirm a foreign award. The party opposing enforcement bears the “heavy” burden of proving that one of the seven defenses applies. Here, having found that the panel had jurisdiction to decide a threshold arbitrability issue, the court found that the respondent failed to establish any basis to disturb the award pursuant to the New York Convention. The court thus granted the petition to confirm. In addition, given the respondent’s failure to comply with the award or otherwise put forth a good faith basis for not complying, the court also granted the petitioner’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs arising from the proceeding.

Commodities & Minerals Enterprise, Ltd. v. CVG Ferrominera Orinoco, C.A., No. 1:19-cv-11654 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 10, 2020).

Florida Federal Court Denies Policyholder’s Motion to Compel Discovery of Reinsurance Agreements Relating to Disability Insurance Policies

by

An insured filed suit in a Florida district court for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the defendant-carriers’ handling of claims made under the insured’s disability insurance policies. During discovery, the insured requested documents concerning the carriers’ general claims handling practices, as well as copies of any coinsurance or reinsurance agreements that the carriers entered into with respect to the insured’s insurance policies. The carriers refused to produce this material, and the insured filed a motion to compel.

The district court ruled at the outset that the insured was not entitled to discovery of the carriers’ general claims handling practices. Relying on D’Aprile v. Unum Life Insurance Co. of America, No. 2:09-cv-00270 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 25, 2010), the court held that the carriers were required to produce only their “rules, guidelines, protocols, standards, and criteria, published or internal, which were utilized in whole or in part, or which relate to” the insured’s claims. With respect to coinsurance and reinsurance agreements, the insured argued that his request was permissible insofar as it related to assets available to satisfy a possible judgment. But the court rejected the argument, agreeing with the carriers that the insured failed to show how these requests were at all relevant to his breach of contract and/or breach of fiduciary claims. The request for coinsurance and/or reinsurance material was denied accordingly.

Allen v. First Unum Life Insurance Co., No. 2:18-cv-00069 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 30, 2020).

New York Court Finds the Term “Exhaustion” in Excess Policy Was Ambiguous, Rules That Full Limits of Underlying Insurance Need Not Be Paid for Excess Policy to Attach

by

Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co. sued OneBeacon Insurance Co. for breach of a facultative reinsurance certificate. Fireman’s Fund settled claims with its insured and allocated a portion of the settlement to a Fireman’s Fund excess policy reinsured by OneBeacon. OneBeacon denied Fireman’s Fund’s claim, arguing that its reinsurance obligations did not attach until all insurance underlying the Fireman’s Fund policy were exhausted in payment of the full limits of the underlying policies. The Fireman’s Fund policy stated that it applies “only after all underlying insurance has been exhausted,” but did not define “exhaustion.” The reinsurance certificate provided that OneBeacon’s liability shall follow Fireman’s Fund’s, that the terms of the certificate shall be subject “in all respects” to the Fireman’s Fund policy, except as stated in the certificate, and that “all claims involving this reinsurance, when settled by [Fireman’s Fund], shall be binding on [OneBeacon].”

On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court agreed with Fireman’s Fund that the term “exhaustion” was ambiguous as used in the Fireman’s Fund policy, as the policy did not specify whether the full limits of underlying insurance must actually be paid before the Fireman’s Fund policy attaches. Applying Second Circuit precedent established in Zeig v. Massachusetts Bonding Co., 23 F.2d 665 (2d Cir. 1928), the court held that once the underlying insurer settled and discharged the claims against the insured, Fireman’s Fund was within its right to treat the underlying limits as “exhausted,” even though the underlying insurer did not actually pay the full limits of its policy. In addition, based on the follow-the-fortunes and follow-the-settlements doctrines, the court found it was barred from second-guessing Fireman’s Fund’s post-settlement allocation decisions. The court therefore granted Fireman’s Fund’s motion for summary judgment and denied OneBeacon’s cross-motion.

Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co. v. OneBeacon Insurance Co., No. 1:14-cv-04718 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 19, 2020).