Brendan Gooley

Third Circuit Affirms Order Unsealing Arbitration Award

January 20, 2021 by Brendan Gooley

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed an order unsealing an arbitration award because the award had been filed with the district court as part of confirmation proceedings and the recipient of the award had not demonstrated a specific harm sufficient to overcome the presumption of public access to documents filed with the courts.

Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Co. arbitrated whether it “was entitled to proceeds based on insurance claims it made to [two of its] reinsurers.”

The arbitration panel issued an award in Penn National’s favor, and Penn National petitioned the district court to confirm that award. As part of the confirmation process, Penn National filed the award with the court, which granted Penn National’s motion to seal the award.

The parties settled before the court confirmed the award.

After the settlement, Everest Reinsurance Co. moved to intervene and unseal the award. The district court originally denied that motion, but the Third Circuit remanded the case after concluding that the court had applied the wrong standard.

On remand, the district court granted Everest’s motion.

The Third Circuit affirmed. It rejected Penn National’s argument “that the arbitration award [was] not a judicial record to which the common-law right of access applies,” explaining that “Penn National filed the arbitration award on the docket with the District Court as part of its motion to confirm the award. Thus, according to [the Third Circuit’s] precedents, the award became a judicial record subject to the common-law right of access.” The court also held that the district court did not err by “holding that [Penn National] did not demonstrate a specific harm sufficient to overcome the presumption of public access.” The Third Circuit explained that an affidavit submitted by one of Penn National’s officers that “other reinsurers might choose to forego paying Penn National and contest their contractual obligation to pay if they learned of the contents in the arbitration award” was insufficient because the court “could not ‘determine how many possible relationships could be impacted, the amount of money that could be at stake, the types of actions other parties may pursue, or the likelihood that any such actions would be successful.’”

Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Co. v. New England Reinsurance Corp., Nos. 20-1635 & 20-1872 (3d Cir. Dec. 24, 2020).

Federal Court Refuses To Compel Arbitration or Appoint Arbitrators Where No Party Had Refused To Arbitrate and Both Parties Were Working on Selecting Arbitrators

December 16, 2020 by Brendan Gooley

A federal court recently refused to compel arbitration after it concluded that there had been no refusal to arbitrate. The court also refused to appoint arbitrators for the parties.

Linda L. Allen claimed Horter Investment Management, LLC’s “representatives sold fraudulent and unregistered investments.” She claimed those claims were subject to arbitration pursuant to a clause in a client agreement that provided that “[c]lient and [a]dvisor both agree that all controversies which may arise between them concerning any transaction or construction, performance or breach of this agreement that cannot be settled, be submitted to binding arbitration.”

Allen and her fellow plaintiffs moved to compel arbitration or, in the alternative, for the appointment of arbitrators. Horter responded that the plaintiffs lacked standing because it had not refused to arbitrate and was participating in the selection of arbitrators.

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (Western Division) agreed with Horter. Although the plaintiffs “initiated arbitration with the AAA, but the AAA declined to administer the clams because of [Horter’s] past actions,” the court did “not find that [Horter’s] acts amount to an unequivocal refusal to arbitrate. Instead, Defendant has expressly acknowledged the agreement to arbitrate. The parties have been working together in the Bruns case and this case to reach an agreement regarding the selection of arbitrators. The Court notes that some of the delay in this process is attributable to Plaintiffs’ change in position regarding consolidated arbitration.” The court also declined to appoint arbitrators because “[b]oth parties are amenable to private arbitration and the names of specific arbitrators have been exchanged.”

Linda L. Allen, et al. v. Horter Investment Management, LLC (S.D. Oh. Sept. 30 2020).

Southern District of New York Rejects Reinsurer’s Claim that Exhaustion Provision Was Not Met; Concludes Indemnification Was Required Under Follow-the-Settlement Clause

December 14, 2020 by Brendan Gooley

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York rejected a reinsurer’s denial of a claim. The court disagreed with the reinsurer’s position than exhaustion language had not been satisfied, and found the exhaustion language ambiguous and concluded that payment was required under a “follow-the-settlement” clause in the reinsurance certificate.

Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company issued three excess liability policies to Asarco. The third policy (“Policy 3”) provided “coverage of $20 million for losses in excess of $75 million in excess of a $3 million self-insured retention for the period March 15, 1983 to March 15, 1984.”

General Accident Insurance Company reinsured Policy 3 under a facultative reinsurance contract in which it assumed “15% . . . of the risk assumed in Policy 3.” OneBeacon Insurance Company subsequently became the successor-in-interest to General Accident.

Asarco filed an action against Fireman’s seeking coverage for asbestos exposure. Fireman’s estimated its exposure at $50.3 million. It settled with Asarco for $35 million and allocated a portion of that settlement to Policy 3 in accordance with its exposure analysis.

Fireman’s then billed OneBeacon pursuant to the reinsurance agreement. OneBeacon denied Fireman’s claim, asserting that the policies underlying Policy 3 had not been exhausted.

The court granted summary judgment to Fireman’s. In short, the court explained that the reinsurance certificate contained a “follow-the-settlements” provision that required OneBeacon to make payments in accordance with Fireman’s good-faith settlement, which was reasonable. That clause was not trumped by any exhaustion clause in Fireman’s policies because the term exhaustion was ambiguous within the meaning of Fireman’s policies.

Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. OneBeacon Ins. Co., No. 14-civ-4718 (PGG) (Oct. 19, 2020).

Ninth Circuit Holds That a Change-of-Terms Provision Cannot Bind Parties To a New Browse-Wrap Agreement

November 11, 2020 by Brendan Gooley

The Ninth Circuit recently concluded that a consumer was not bound by updated terms merely because she accessed a website that contained new terms in a “browse-wrap” agreement on the website. The court also concluded that an arbitration clause in the original “click-wrap” terms that did apply did not preclude arbitration under a California rule invalidating arbitration clauses that preclude public injunctive relief actions under the California Unfair Competition Law.

In 2014, Rachel Stover purchased a credit monitoring product called Experian Credit Score. In so doing, she assented to certain terms and conditions, including an arbitration clause requiring arbitration of any claims arising out of the transaction “to the fullest extent permitted by law” and a change-of-terms provision stating that “[e]ach time” she “accessed . . . the . . . Product Website,” she manifested to “the then-current” terms of the agreement.

Stover cancelled her subscription in 2014, but accessed the website again in 2018. The following day, she filed a putative class action in California federal court alleging violations of, inter alia, the Fair Credit Reporting Act and California’s Unfair Competition Law.

Experian moved to compel arbitration. The District Court granted that motion. It concluded that (1) the dispute was governed by Experian’s 2018 terms because the change-of-terms clause in the 2014 terms made the 2018 operative as soon as Stover logged onto the website in 2018, (2) a carve out for Fair Credit Reporting Act claims in the 2018 terms did not apply, and (3) Stover’s claims were not exempt from arbitration under the California Supreme Court’s decision in McGill v. Citibank, N.A., 393 P.3d 85, 94 (Cal. 2017), which held that “a provision in any contract . . . that purports to waive, in all fora, the statutory right to seek public injunctive relief under the [California Unfair Competition Law (UCL)] is invalid . . . .”

The Ninth Circuit affirmed on appeal, albeit on different grounds.

The court held that “[i]n order to bind parties to new terms pursuant to a change-of-terms provision, consistent with basic principles of contract law, both parties must have notice that the terms have changed and an opportunity to review the changes.” In this case, “[b]ecause Stover ha[d] not alleged that she had such an opportunity, the 2018 terms did not form a valid contract.” The court also explained “that mere inquiry notice of changed terms is [not] enough to bind the parties to them” and that “Stover had no obligation to investigate whether Experian issued new terms without providing notice to her that it had done so.” The 2014 terms applied.

The court then concluded that arbitration was not precluded by McGill. The arbitration clause in the 2014 terms provided for arbitration “to the fullest extent allowed by law.” That phrase “presumably exclude[d] claims for public injunctive relief in California.” Stover’s claims, the court explained, did not meet the Article III standing requirement for seeking public injunctive relief. As a result, “the McGill rule d[id] not excuse Stover from binding arbitration.”

Rachel Stover v. Experian Holdings, Inc., No. 19-55204 (9th Cir. Oct. 21, 2020).

Court Grants Temporary Restraining Order Enjoining FINRA Arbitration From Proceeding Pending a Decision on Arbitrability

November 9, 2020 by Brendan Gooley

A court recently granted a temporary restraining order enjoining a FINRA arbitration from proceeding after the court concluded that there was a serious question regarding arbitrability.

Barry Horowitz, an estate planning attorney who had a relationship with Lincoln Financial Securities Corporation, allegedly referred some clients to Thomas D. Renison, an insurance agent.

Renison was charged with federal crimes (though those charges were later dropped). Renison nevertheless was barred from the securities industry. Horowitz ultimately terminated his relationship with Renison as a result of these alleged improprieties.

Several of Horowitz’s clients whom he had referred to Renison claimed that Horowitz and Lincoln Financial were liable for damages caused by Renison’s alleged fraud.

The clients sought to arbitrate the dispute under FINRA’s arbitration rules. Horowitz and Lincoln Financial sought to stay those proceedings, but when those requests were denied, filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that the clients did not have a right to compel arbitration because there was no written arbitration agreement between the parties, and FINRA did not apply. Horowitz and Lincoln Financial sought a temporary restraining order enjoining the FINRA arbitration from proceeding until a court could rule on the question of arbitrability.

The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut granted the temporary restraining order requested by Horowitz and Lincoln Financial. The court noted that, under Second Circuit precedent, Horowitz and Lincoln Financial would be irreparably harmed if they were forced to expend time and resources arbitrating an issue that was not arbitrable. The court also concluded that Horowitz and Lincoln Financial had raised a serious question as to whether FINRA applied because there was an open question as to whether the clients were their “customers” within the meaning of FINRA Rule 12200. Finally, the court found that the hardships tipped decidedly in favor of Horowitz and Lincoln Financial because a temporary restraining order maintained the status quo, and because arbitrability rested on a binary legal question.

Lincoln Fin. Sec. Corp. v. Foster et al., No. 3:20-cv-01132-VLB (D. Conn. Oct. 20, 2020).