Brendan Gooley

Court Compels Arbitration With Respect to Insurers, Not Brokers

June 18, 2020 by Brendan Gooley

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas recently compelled arbitration against insurers but not brokers related to a commercial insurance dispute.

After Hurricane Harvey decimated Houston, an insured sought coverage under its commercial insurance policy. The insurers, several of whom were foreign, denied coverage. The insured filed suit against the insurers based on the denial and an alleged failure to investigate. It also sued the brokers who developed the policy on the theory that the brokers had failed to disclose that the policy contained an allegedly “unique and extremely onerous” arbitration clause.

The insurers and brokers sought to compel arbitration under that clause. The district court granted the insurers’ motion but denied the brokers’ motion and stayed the action.

The court concluded that the requirements of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards were met with respect to the insurers and rejected the insured’s argument that the Convention’s exception where the arbitration agreement is “null and void” applied. The insured contended that the arbitration agreement was “unconscionable” under Texas law because it required arbitration to occur in and be subject to the law of New York, set strict limitations on damages, and required the tribunal to comprise senior underwriters or claims handlers. The court explained that the “null and void” exception “is limited to standard breach-of-contract defenses capable of being applied neutrally on an international scale – such as fraud, mistake, duress, waiver, and the like.” There was no evidence of that here.

With respect to the broker defendants, the court noted that they were not signatories to the insurance agreement and its arbitration clause and that non-signatories could compel arbitration in limited circumstances. The court rejected the contention that “intertwined-claims estoppel” applied, explaining that the insured’s complaint did not establish a sufficiently close relationship between the insurers and the brokers for that doctrine to apply. The court also rejected “direct-benefits estoppel,” explaining that the doctrine was not applicable because the insured’s claims against the brokers related to alleged misrepresentations and omissions in the insurance contract’s development and did not assert breaches of the insurance policy. “[N]o interpretation of the insurance policy [was] necessary to adjudicate the misrepresentation claims” against the brokers.

The court nevertheless stayed court proceedings pending completion of the arbitration.

5556 Gasmer Management LLC v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, No. 4:19-cv-00974 (S.D. Tex. May 29, 2020).

U.S. Supreme Court Holds Equitable Estoppel Can Allow Non-Signatories to Compel Arbitration Under the New York Convention

June 16, 2020 by Brendan Gooley

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that equitable estoppel doctrines can be invoked by non-signatories seeking to compel arbitration under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards.

ThyssenKrupp Stainless USA contracted with F.L. Industries Inc. to build cold rolling mills at ThyssenKrupp’s steel plant in Alabama. The contracts between ThyssenKrupp and F.L. contained arbitration clauses. F.L. subcontracted with GE Energy Power Conversion France SAS Corp. for motors for the mills. After GE Energy delivered the motors, Outokumpu Stainless USA acquired the plant from ThyssenKrupp. Shortly thereafter, the motors allegedly failed. Outokumpu sued GE Energy, which sought to compel arbitration under the arbitration clauses in the ThyssenKrupp-F.L. contracts.

The district court granted GE Energy’s motion. It concluded that the ThyssenKrupp-F.L. contracts included subcontractors within the definition of the terms “seller” and “parties” and that Outokumpu and GE Energy were therefore parties to the ThyssenKrupp-F.L. contracts. The court therefore declined to reach GE Energy’s alternate argument that the arbitration clauses were enforceable under equitable estoppel principles even if the litigants were not parties.

The Eleventh Circuit reversed. It concluded, in relevant part, that the Convention required parties to sign arbitration agreements, that GE Energy had indisputably not signed the ThyssenKrupp-F.L. contracts, and that GE Energy could therefore not rely on equitable estoppel because that doctrine conflicted with the Convention’s signatory requirement.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a circuit split and held that equitable estoppel doctrines can allow non-signatories to compel arbitration under the Convention.

The court explained that chapter 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) “permits a nonsignatory to rely on state-law equitable estoppel doctrines to enforce an arbitration agreement” and that the Convention in turn provided that chapter 1 of the FAA applies to proceedings brought pursuant to the Convention’s implementing legislation “to the extent that [chapter 1] is not in conflict with [the implementing legislation] or the Convention.” Thus, the court needed to determine whether applying equitable estoppel principles conflicted with the Convention.

The court concluded it did not. It explained that the Convention was “silent” on the issue and that that “silence [was] dispositive … because nothing in the text of the Convention could be read to otherwise prohibit the application of domestic equitable estoppel doctrines.”

The court also explained that the relevant section of the Convention did not contain exclusionary language stating that arbitration agreements could only be enforced in the circumstances identified. In addition, the Convention “contemplate[s] the use of domestic doctrines to fill gaps in the Convention,” its drafting history supported the conclusion that domestic law could apply, and a majority of the courts of other signatory countries to analyze the issue had concluded that the Convention “does not prohibit the application of domestic law.”

The Supreme Court, therefore, remanded the case to the Eleventh Circuit to consider the merits of GE Energy’s equitable estoppel argument.

GE Energy Power Conversion France SAS, Corp. v. Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC, No. 18-1048 (U.S. June 1, 2020).

Fifth Circuit Rejects Challenges to $147M International Arbitration Award

May 29, 2020 by Brendan Gooley

The Fifth Circuit has rejected challenges under Article V of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards to a Swedish arbitration award.

In 1994, Carpatsky Petroleum Corp., at the time a Texas company, entered into a joint activity agreement with Ukraine’s state oil and gas enterprise (OJSC Ukrnafta) to develop an oil and gas field in Ukraine.

Two years later, Carpatsky merged into a newly incorporated Delaware company also called Carpatsky. Carpatsky did not formally notify Ukrnafta of this corporate change, and an amendment to the joint activity agreement executed shortly thereafter stated that Carpatsky was registered in Texas and was affixed with a seal that included Carpatsky’s Texas incorporation number.

The oil and gas venture went south and led to litigation and arbitration. A Swedish arbitration tribunal ultimately awarded Carpatsky approximately $147 million. A federal district court subsequently confirmed that award. Ukrnafta appealed that ruling to the Fifth Circuit.

Ukrnafta first challenged the district court’s removal jurisdiction. The Fifth Circuit rejected that claim, noting that “[r]emoval is allowed whenever a defendant asserts a ‘nonfrivolous connection’ to an international arbitration agreement.” The court concluded that that “low bar” was “easily clear[ed]” by Carpatsky under the facts of this case.

The Fifth Circuit accordingly turned to Ukrnafta’s merits claims.

At the outset, the court noted that it only had “secondary jurisdiction” over the case because the arbitration award was rendered in Sweden under Swedish law. The court’s review was therefore limited to determining whether the award should be vacated under the grounds listed in Article V of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards.

Ukrnafta’s principal contention was that the relevant agreements between the parties were not valid because of Carpatsky’s allegedly undisclosed change in domicile from Texas to Delaware and the use of a seal with Carpatsky’s Texas incorporation information on an amendment after Carpatsky had reincorporated in Delaware through a merger. The Fifth Circuit rejected that claim. It explained that Carpatsky’s signatory (whose name was Mr. Texas) had the capacity to bind Carpatsky, and Mr. Texas’ use of the Texas seal to do so didn’t change that. Ukrnafta had also waived its claim that Carpatsky’s reincorporation somehow rendered the arbitration agreement void by submitting to the arbitration in Stockholm after it knew about the reincorporation. That agreement was effectively a new agreement to arbitrate the disputes between the parties.

The Fifth Circuit then rejected Ukrnafta’s remaining claims under Article V:

The arbitration awarded Ukrnafta ample due process (the tribunal “held multiple hearings,” the “parties submitted witness statements, expert reports, and multiple rounds of briefing,” and the “merits hearing lasted four days with fifteen witnesses,” similar to a “full-blown federal trial”) and Ukrnafta had therefore not been “unable to present [its] case.”
The arbitration award did not exceed the “terms of the submission to arbitration” and was not “beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration” merely because the panel refused to apply a limitation of liability because it concluded “that Ukrainian law renders a limitation of liability unenforceable in cases of international breach” and regardless of whether that decision was “[r]ight or wrong,” it was not a ground for nonrecognition.
For the reasons already discussed regarding Ukrnafta’s agreement to arbitrate in Sweden, “Ukrnafta waived [any] challenge to the Stockholm tribunal’s jurisdiction.”
The arbitration award was not “contrary to the public policy” on the ground that it disrespected the holding of Ukrainian courts in related litigation that “the 1998 amendment” to the joint activity agreement “was invalid because of Carpatsky’s changed domicile”: although American courts are concerned with comity, there is a “strong policy favoring international arbitration” and “[e]nforcing this award would [therefore] further American policy, not contravene it.”

The Fifth Circuit also rejected Ukrnafta’s argument that the arbitration panel had “‘manifestly disregarded’ the Ukrainian statute of limitations” (that was not a ground for refusing to enforce the award under Article V) and Ukrnafta’s attempt to pursue state law claims (those claims were barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion based on the arbitration proceedings).

The Fifth Circuit, therefore, affirmed the district court’s confirmation.

OJSC Ukrnafta v. Carpatsky Petroleum Corp., No. 19-20011 (5th Cir. Apr. 6, 2020).

Fifth Circuit Suggests Question of Class Arbitrability Was for Arbitrator Not Court

May 27, 2020 by Brendan Gooley

The Fifth Circuit has suggested that the question of class arbitrability was for the arbitrator, not the court, based on the language of the arbitration clause at issue. The court ultimately concluded, however, that it did not need to reach that issue because the appellant challenging the arbitrator’s conclusion that class arbitration was available forfeited the argument.

Roy Conrad initiated arbitration against his employer Sun Coast Resources Inc. regarding purported violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The arbitrator concluded that the parties’ agreement “clearly provide[d] for collective actions.” Sun Coast moved to vacate that determination, but the district court rejected Sun Coast’s arguments. The Fifth Circuit affirmed.

The court explained that although there was a presumption that class arbitrability is a question for the court, “the arbitration agreement … appear[ed] to assign the question of class arbitrability to the arbitrator rather than to the court.” The arbitration clause covered “any dispute concerning the arbitrability of any such controversy or claim” and incorporated the American Arbitration Association rules for arbitration. Those provisions “strongly indicate[d] that the parties bargained for the arbitrator to decide class arbitrability.”

The Fifth Circuit nevertheless found it unnecessary to decide that issue. Sun Coast had forfeited its argument that the arbitrator invaded the province of the court by failing to raise that argument before the arbitrator and then failing to properly raise it before the district court.

In fact, Sun Coast had “affirmatively agreed that the arbitrator should decide whether collective proceedings were appropriate.”

The court also refused to vacate the arbitrator’s award on the merits. It concluded that the arbitrator interpreted the agreement and focused on the arbitration clause’s text, which was sufficient regardless of whether the arbitrator’s decision was in fact correct.

Sun Coast Resources, Inc. v. Conrad, No. 19-20058 (5th Cir. Apr. 16, 2020).

Court Compels Arbitration Based on Merger Clause Incorporating Separate Agreement Into Contract Containing Arbitration Clause and Rejects Argument That Delay Precluded Arbitration

May 7, 2020 by Brendan Gooley

The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina has compelled arbitration over a party’s objection that the dispute at issue was not within the scope of the arbitration clause and that arbitration was precluded by the opposing party’s failure to seek it sooner. The court concluded that a merger clause in the contract amendment containing the arbitration clause and the broad language of the arbitration clause rendered the dispute about a separate agreement incorporated into the amendment and subject to the arbitration clause and ruled that there was no actual prejudice to preclude the invocation of the arbitration clause.

In concluding that delay did not preclude arbitration, the court found significant the fact that the party opposing arbitration had agreed in a Rule 26(f) report to allow the opposing party to file a motion to compel, which greatly undermined the party’s prejudice argument.

North Carolina Mutual Life Insurance Co. entered into a coinsurance agreement with Max Re Ltd. pursuant to which Max Re and later a successor agreed to reinsure certain liabilities in North Carolina Mutual policies. North Carolina Mutual and Max Re’s successor subsequently entered into a novation agreement with Port Royal Reassurance Company SPC Ltd. pursuant to which Port Royal replaced Max Re’s successor as reinsurer. The parties also entered into an amendment to the coinsurance agreement that contained an arbitration clause and a merger clause related to the coinsurance agreement. The amendment also incorporated a trust agreement related to the reinsurance obligations of the various parties to the amendment.

In September 2016, North Carolina Mutual filed suit claiming mismanagement and misappropriation of trust assets in violation of the trust agreement. The parties engaged in settlement negotiations, and several parties reached an agreement in March 2017. The court then stayed the remaining portion of the action until September 2018. The settlement agreement, however, fell apart and the court lifted its stay in April 2018. North Carolina Mutual subsequently filed an amended complaint, which Port Royal answered, that invoked the arbitration clause as an affirmative defense. More than a year later, the parties filed their Rule 26(f) report. The parties agreed in that report that Port Royal could file a motion to compel arbitration by a certain date. Port Royal thereafter filed its motion to compel.

North Carolina Mutual opposed Port Royal’s motion, arguing that (1) its claims against Port Royal were not within the scope of the arbitration clause and (2) Port Royal was in “statutory default” and could not invoke the arbitration clause because years had elapsed since the action was filed.

The Middle District of North Carolina rejected both arguments.

First, the court concluded that North Carolina Mutual’s claims, which related to the trust agreement, were within the scope of the amendment’s arbitration clause. That clause was broad and encompassed “any dispute or claim arising out of or relating to” the parties agreement, which included the trust agreement because of the amendment’s merger clause, which evidenced an “intent … to ‘roll up’ several separate agreements [including the trust agreement] into one integrated contract.”

Second, the court explained that in order to preclude arbitration based on “statutory default,” the party objecting to arbitration had to establish “actual prejudice.” The court analyzed two factors to determine whether such prejudice existed: (1) the degree of Port Royal’s delay in seeking arbitration; and (2) the nature and extent of Port Royal’s litigation activities. Although the court recognized that this action had been pending for years, it noted that the case’s history included a settlement agreement and a stay. The court also emphasized that North Carolina Mutual agreed in the Rule 26(f) report that Port Royal could file a motion to compel arbitration, which “greatly undermine[d] [North Carolina Mutual’s] claim of prejudicial delay.” Port Royal’s litigation activity, meanwhile, was limited to filing answers, participating in a pretrial conference, and moving to compel.

The court also rejected North Carolina Mutual’s argument that the court should deny arbitration because North Carolina Mutual would have to prosecute litigation and arbitration simultaneously if the court compelled arbitration. The court noted that North Carolina Mutual “took on that risk when it brought its claims in federal court while being party to a contractual agreement with a mandatory arbitration provision.”

North Carolina Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Stamford Brook Capital, LLC, No. 1:16-cv-01174 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 10, 2020).