Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

You are here: Home / Archives for Brendan Gooley

Brendan Gooley

Fireman’s Fund Obtains Second Circuit Reversal in Long-Running Reinsurance Dispute Involving Asbestos Claims and Policies Without Aggregate Limits

by

The Second Circuit has reversed a $64 million judgment against Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co. in the latest ruling in a long-running dispute related to primary and excess policies that Utica Mutual Insurance Co. issued to a company later embroiled in asbestos claims.

We’ve been closely following this dispute at the district court level. For a full recap, see our posts noting that the district court refused to seal summary judgment exhibits, allowed “follow-the-fortunes” (also known as “follow-the-settlements”) evidence, and refused to change a credibility determination. We’ve also covered a companion case on several occasions.

To recap, Utica Mutual Insurance Co. issued primary and excess policies to Goulds Pump Inc. Utica reinsured a portion of the excess policies with Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co. Goulds subsequently faced thousands of asbestos claims related to its products. Utica defended and indemnified those claims pursuant to its policies.

A dispute arose between Utica and Goulds because Utica’s policies allegedly did not contain aggregate limits. To avoid potentially catastrophic losses as a result of that purported omission, Utica settled its dispute with Goulds. The parties agreed, among other things, that the primary policies contained aggregate limits and that Goulds’ umbrella policies would cover losses that exceeded the primary policies’ aggregate limits. They also stipulated the settlement was fair, just, and reasonable and resolved within the terms of the policies.

Utica subsequently sought reimbursement from Fireman’s Fund pursuant to the reinsurance contracts. In short, the district court denied cross-motions for summary judgment, and a jury subsequently returned a $64 million verdict in favor of Utica following a 12-day trial.

Fireman’s Fund appealed to the Second Circuit. It argued that it did not owe anything to Utica because the reinsurance certificates contained a “follow form” clause that provided that Fireman’s Fund’s liability “shall follow that of [Utica] and … shall be subject in all respects to all the terms and conditions of [the umbrella policies]” and the umbrella policies provided they only applied in excess of the limits stated in the schedules accompanying the umbrella policies, which Fireman’s Fund claimed did not contain any aggregate limits for bodily injury claims.

Applying New York law, the Second Circuit agreed. It explained that the plain language of the excess policies provided that they only applied “in excess of … the amounts of the applicable limits of liability of the underlying insurance as stated in the Schedule of Underlying Insurance Policies,” and “the limits of liability listed in [those] Schedules for bodily injury d[id] not include aggregate limits.” The court rejected Utica’s argument that the language in the excess policies only required occurrence limits, not aggregate limits, to be listed as inconsistent with the plain language of the excess policies and New York’s principles of contract interpretation.

Utica argued, however, that Fireman’s Fund was obligated to reimburse it pursuant to the reinsurance contracts because those contracts contained a “follow-the-settlements” clause that provided that all “claims involving this reinsurance, when settled by [Utica], shall be binding on [Fireman’s Fund].” The Second Circuit explained that follow-the-settlements clauses may “not alter the terms or override the language of reinsurance policies.” Adopting Utica’s argument would “render the follow form clause in the reinsurance contract and the umbrella policy language defining Utica’s loss meaningless” and would contradict the parties’ expressed agreement.

The Second Circuit therefore reversed the judgment against Fireman’s Fund.

Utica Mutual Insurance Co. v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co., No. 18-828 (2d Cir. Apr. 28, 2020).

District Court Compels Arbitration for Claims Against Supervisor Despite Plaintiff’s Claims Regarding Never Seeing or Signing Agreement Containing Arbitration Clause

by

The U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska recently granted a defendant’s motion to compel arbitration despite a plaintiff’s claims that she had never seen or signed the employment agreement containing the arbitration clause and that the agreement did not cover certain claims and could not be invoked by a defendant who was not a party to the agreement.

Barbara Nelson worked as an assistant manager in a restaurant owned by American Blue Ribbon Holdings LLC. Julie Kunkle was Nelson’s supervisor. Nelson filed a number of claims related to her employment against American Blue Ribbon Holdings and Kunkle, including a defamation claim related to purported statements Kunkle made to restaurant employees and others.

American Blue Ribbon Holdings obtained a stay with respect to Nelson’s claims related to potential bankruptcy proceedings. Kunkle moved to compel arbitration, claiming that Nelson’s claims were within the scope of an arbitration clause Nelson signed when she was hired by American Blue Ribbon Holdings.

The district court granted Kunkle’s request despite Nelson’s claims that (1) she had never signed the employment agreement in question and (2) even if she had, the arbitration clause did not cover her claims against Kunkle, who was not a signatory to the agreement with American Blue Ribbon Holdings.

First, the court rejected Nelson’s “self-serving” affidavit that she had never seen nor signed the arbitration clause. The evidence established that someone had to access the agreement containing the clause via an emailed link sent to Nelson’s email account, enter Nelson’s email address as a username, use Nelson’s zip code as the password, and subsequently enter Nelson’s “address, telephone number, date of birth, Social Security number, gender, marital status, and direct deposit banking information.” The evidence further established that American Blue Ribbon Holdings did not otherwise collect this information and that Nelson signed the agreement again when she started.

Second, the court concluded that Nelson’s claim against Kunkle was within the scope of the arbitration agreement and that Kunkle could invoke that agreement even though she was not a signatory to it. The agreement was broad and covered, among other things, “disputes regarding the employment relationship” brought under certain employment statutes “and all other state statutory and common law claims.” The fact that (1) Kunkle was an agent of American Blue Ribbon Holdings; (2) allowing Nelson to sue Kunkle for employment-related claims covered by the agreement would limit the agreement’s effectiveness; and (3) many of Nelson’s claims against Kunkle were synonymous or intertwined with her claims against American Blue Ribbon Holdings was sufficient for the clause to cover Nelson’s defamation claim, as well as claims that Kunkle violated Nelson’s rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act.

The court therefore stayed Nelson’s action pending arbitration proceedings.

Nelson v. Kunkle, No. 8:19-cv-00329 (D. Neb. Mar. 20, 2020).

First Circuit Affirms Confirmation of FINRA Award Over Claim That Arbitration Panel Should Have Held Investment Firm Liable Under Doctrine of Respondeat Superior

by

The First Circuit has affirmed the confirmation of a FINRA award over an appellant’s claim that the arbitrators erred by, among other things, not holding an investment firm liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior. The court held that the evidence supported the arbitrators’ finding and that the appellant had not come close to satisfying the “manifest disregard” standard.

Kenneth Ebbe invested his pension and 401(k) with Richard Cody. Cody told Ebbe that the distributions Ebbe was receiving were interest only and that his account’s balance remained around $500,000. The distributions were actually significantly reducing Ebbe’s principal.

FINRA’s appeals panel suspended Cody. Cody therefore transferred Ebbe’s account to his wife, who worked as an investment adviser at Concorde Investment Services LLC. Cody nevertheless continued to meet with Ebbe regarding his account. Ebbe received monthly statements that accurately reflected that his account balance was declining, but Cody told Ebbe that those statements did not include all of Ebbe’s investments. After his suspension ended, Cody joined Concorde as an investor. Both he and his wife were eventually terminated after Concorde discovered that Cody had contacted customers during his suspension.

Ebbe eventually discovered that his account had no value and filed for arbitration with FINRA against the Codys, Concorde, and others. The Codys did not appear. During the four-day hearing, Ebbe’s expert testified that Cody committed defalcations and that Concorde had a duty to reasonably supervise the Codys, but did not opine that Concorde had violated that duty and admitted there was no evidence that Cody’s wife had made any misrepresentation to Ebbe.

Concorde presented evidence that it had hired Cody’s wife after a diligent background check, that it supervised her, and that it had complied with all industry rules.

The arbitration panel found that the Codys were jointly and severally liable for $286,000 in damages but denied Ebbe’s remaining claims, including the claims against Concorde.

Ebbe moved to confirm in part and vacate in part the award. Concorde and another defendant moved to confirm it. The district court confirmed the award and Ebbe appealed.

The First Circuit rejected Ebbe’s claims, including his principal claim that the panel had committed manifest disregard for the law and that Concorde should be liable as well under the doctrine of respondeat superior. The court noted that arbitrators are not required to explain their awards and that a party is hard pressed to satisfy the demanding standard for manifest disregard. The court also noted that the evidence supported the arbitrator’s finding in favor of Concorde and that the award against the Codys could have been nothing more than a default judgment.

Ebbe v. Concorde Investment Services, LLC, No. 19-1819 (1st Cir. Mar. 24, 2020).

Eleventh Circuit Affirms Confirmation of Arbitration Award Over Claims of Fraud, AAA Rule-Breaking, and Lack of Jurisdiction

by

The Eleventh Circuit recently affirmed the confirmation of an arbitration award in a dispute involving a contract to obtain signatures for a Florida solar energy ballot initiative over claims that the prevailing party engaged in fraud, violated AAA rules, and that the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to add attorneys’ fees to his award months after the arbitration hearing.

PCI Consultants Inc. contracts with entities and organizations to obtain signatures for petitions for ballot initiatives in exchange for a fee. In 2015, PCI contracted with Floridians for Solar Choice Inc. and Solar Alliance for Clean Energy Inc. (together, the Solar parties) to obtain signatures to support a proposed ballot initiative for a solar energy amendment to the Florida Constitution. A dispute arose regarding payment. The Solar parties believed they paid PCI what it was due, but PCI withheld 217,000 signed petitions due to purported nonpayment. The dispute concerned additional expenses for a different ballot initiative concerning medical marijuana. PCI claimed the Solar parties agreed to share expenses with the medical marijuana campaign while the Solar parties disputed that they agreed to cover those expenses.

Floridians for Solar Choice sued alleging various claims in a U.S. District Court in Florida and moved to compel arbitration. The court granted that motion, and Solar Alliance subsequently appeared in the arbitration. After a three-day hearing, the single arbitrator who heard the dispute ruled in favor of the Solar parties and awarded $1,271,250 in damages. Several months later, the arbitrator also tacked on interest, costs, and fees for a total award of approximately $2,015,900.

The district court confirmed the award over PCI’s motion to vacate, agreeing that the award of interest, costs, and fees was proper. PCI appealed to the Eleventh Circuit.

On appeal, PCI claimed (1) the Solar parties committed fraud during the arbitration proceedings by altering their damages analysis; (2) the Solar parties violated AAA rules that PCI claimed required the appointment of three arbitrators rather than one; and (3) the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to award fees months after the arbitration hearing.

The Eleventh Circuit rejected all of PCI’s claims and affirmed the award’s confirmation.

First, PCI claimed that the Solar parties committed fraud by increasing their claimed damages in their post-hearing brief. The Eleventh Circuit disagreed, noting that the requirements of the test it applied for the FAA’s fraud exception were not satisfied. The court noted that PCI cited no case holding that “a change in damages theory constitutes ‘fraud’ or ‘undue means’ under” the FAA’s fraud exception. The Solar parties’ post-hearing demand for more than $1,000,000 was supported by the record even though they initially sought less than $500,000. (The Solar parties apparently initially sought partial reimbursement for the per-signature fee of the 217,000 withheld petitions, but later successfully argued they were entitled to full reimbursement for those petitions.)

Second, the court rejected PCI’s contention that it was entitled to a three-arbitrator panel, noting that AAA rules allowed the parties to agree on one or three arbitrators and provided that if the parties were unable to agree and the claim involved more than $1 million, then the matter would be heard by three arbitrators. The facts established that PCI had agreed to a single arbitrator knowing that this case potentially involved more than $1 million. In its statement of claim, Floridians for Solar Choice demanded $500,000 to $1 million-plus punitive damages, and when Solar Alliance was added as a party it sought additional damages. Despite being on notice that the claimed damages exceeded $ million, PCI did not request a three-arbitrator panel and instead stipulated to one arbitrator.

Third, the Eleventh Circuit rejected PCI’s contention that the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to award fees when he did so several months after the arbitration because the arbitrator lost jurisdiction over the case 30 days after the hearing. The court noted that it has rejected the notion that arbitrators act outside their authority merely because they do not follow the AAA’s rules regarding the time for issuing decisions. It also noted that several other circuits have held that whether an arbitration award was timely is not a jurisdictional issue. In this case, the parties also stipulated that all motions for attorneys’ fees would be resolved after the hearing.

Floridians for Solar Choice, Inc. v. Paparella, No. 18-12907 (11th Cir. Mar. 3, 2020).

Northern District of New York Refuses to Change Credibility Determination Regarding Bench-Trial Testimony by Attorney Involved in Underlying Settlement Negotiations

by

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York recently denied an insurer’s attempt to compel the court to change a credibility decision it rendered following a bench trial in reinsurance litigation between Utica Mutual Insurance Co. and Munich Reinsurance America Inc. that we’ve been following closely.

We’ve previously written about this litigation (multiple times, not counting related litigation, which we’ve also written about multiple times). But even with all the hype, a quick overview is in order. Utica issued primary policies to insured Goulds Pumps Inc. that, in the Second Circuit’s words, “had a glaring omission: they did not include aggregate limits of liability.” The results of that omission were potentially catastrophic for Utica because Goulds could potentially select a primary policy to apply to all asbestos claims that would never exhaust or trigger excess policies. Thus, in the underlying litigation, Goulds wisely argued there were no aggregate policy limits while Utica insisted the policies had such limits and that the fact that they did not actually appear in the policies “was a mere ‘scrivener’s error.’” Goulds and Utica ultimately settled the underlying dispute. The settlement agreement provided that the primary policies “have … an aggregate limit of liability.” Utica attorney and vice president Bernard Turi was involved in the settlement negotiations and the drafting of the settlement agreement.

Litigation between Utica and Munich regarding Utica billings to Munich under facultative reinsurance certificates Munich issued to Utica in 1973 followed.

During a ten-day bench trial, Turi testified that during the settlement negotiations with Goulds, Utica did not bargain for Goulds’ agreement that the primary policies had aggregate limits. Turi testified that Goulds agreed that the policies had such limits and always had.

Following the trial, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York ruled in favor of Munich in one case (Utica I) and Utica in another (Utica II). With respect to Turi, the court concluded that Turi’s testimony “that Utica did not bargain for Goulds’ agreement that the primary policies had aggregate limits as part of its settlement with Goulds” was not credible. The court noted that Turi had conceded on cross-examination that “getting Goulds to agree to aggregate limits in the primary policies had value to Utica.”

Utica appealed the court’s ruling against it and filed a Rule 52(b) motion to amend the court’s finding regarding Turi’s credibility regarding settlement negotiations. Utica specifically claimed that the court failed to distinguish between whether the policies “in fact” had aggregate limits, which Utica claimed was not bargained for, and whether Utica nevertheless compromised with Goulds to resolve a disagreement about that fact, which Utica agreed it had.

The court denied Utica’s motion. It noted that Goulds had claimed in the underlying litigation that the policies did not have aggregate limits, that there was an enormous risk to Utica if the court were to accept that position, and that Goulds ultimately agreed in the settlement agreement that the policies had aggregate limits. The court explained that its findings regarding Turi’s credibility was not premised on whether the policies actually had aggregate limits and that the court did not find that Utica had bargained for “the fact” of aggregate limits as Utica claimed the court had. Instead, the court reaffirmed its decision that, under the circumstances, any contention that Utica had not bargained for Goulds’ agreement that the policies contained aggregate limits was not credible. The court noted that the high standard for succeeding on a Rule 52(b) motion was not satisfied and declined to amend its findings of fact.

Munich believed that Utica’s Rule 52(b) motion was so meritless that it sought sanctions, but the court declined to award them, concluding that the standard for sanctions was not met.

Utica Mutual Insurance Co. v. Munich Reinsurance America, Inc., No. 6:12-cv-00196, 6:13-cv-00743 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 2020).