Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

You are here: Home / Archives for Brendan Gooley

Brendan Gooley

Ninth Circuit Finds No Foreign Arbitration Award to Uphold

by

Foreign arbitration awards must generally be upheld in the United States under treaty obligations. Upholding a foreign award requires that there actually be an arbitration award, however. For that matter, it requires an actual arbitration proceeding. A recent Ninth Circuit decision confronted a strange situation where there was no arbitration to confirm.

Michael Castro signed an employment agreement to be a commercial fisherman for Tri Marine. The agreement contained a mandatory arbitration provision that required him to arbitrate any disputes in and subject to the procedural rules of American Samoa. Castro was injured on the job. He released his claims in exchange for a cash settlement. The release also contained an arbitration clause requiring arbitration in American Samoa. Castro was then advised to go to an arbitrator in the Philippines with a representative of Tri Marine, though claimed he was told and believed he was merely picking up his settlement check. At the arbitrator’s office, Tri Marine filed a motion to dismiss the arbitration, even though there was not an arbitration case filed (indeed, there wasn’t even a case number assigned to the matter). The arbitrator granted that motion. Castro later required additional surgery and sought to bring suit in Washington state court in the United States. Tri Marine removed to Washington federal court, which dismissed the case.

The Ninth Circuit reversed. The court recognized that foreign arbitration awards must generally be upheld under the New York Convention, but concluded that there was no arbitral award under the facts. Although the arbitrator had issued a decision on a motion to dismiss, the parties had settled their dispute before the “case” was even filed. There was nothing to arbitrate. But even if there was an “arbitration,” it did not comply with the arbitration agreement’s arbitration clause or choice-of-venue provision. There was no evidence Castro waived those provisions. And even putting aside all those problems, the “arbitration” did not comply with the law of the Philippines concerning arbitration. The Ninth Circuit was careful to note that it was not infringing on “consent awards” whereby settlements reached during arbitration are turned into arbitration awards. That did not happen in this case. The court then remanded the case to the district court and instructed it to consider whether jurisdiction existed.

Castro v. Tri Marine Fish Co., No. 17-35703 (9th Cir. Feb. 27, 2019).

New York Federal Court Rejects Attempt to Vacate Arbitration Award Related to Theft of Corporate Assets

by

A New York federal court recently confirmed an arbitration award related to the alleged theft of more than $100 million from a Luxembourg company, SLS Capital. SLS’s liquidator in bankruptcy court then initiated a FINRA arbitration against CRT Capital, which had sold its majority interest in SLS to David Elias, who allegedly stole SLS’s assets.

CRT prevailed after a lengthy arbitration and was awarded more than $4 million, which includes costs and fees. CRT sought to confirm the award. SRT opposed that motion and sought to vacate the award. SRT argued that the arbitrators had improperly: (1) excluded expert rebuttal testimony it proffered; (2) applied the Federal Rules of Evidence during the hearing; and (3) awarded fees. The New York district court rejected those arguments and confirmed the award. The court concluded that the arbitration panel had numerous independent grounds for excluding the proffered rebuttal testimony, acted within its discretion to apply the evidentiary rules, and, under a highly circumscribed review, did not manifestly disregard the law of New York with respect to the award of costs and fees.

CRT Capital Grp. LLC v. SLS Capital, S.A., No. 1:18-cv-03986-VSB (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2019)

“Partial Final” Does Not Mean Final

by

Don’t try to confirm an arbitration award when there is still arbitration work to be done. Relying on Seventh Circuit precedent, the Northern District of Illinois concluded that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to confirm an arbitration award because the arbitrators’ work was incomplete and the arbitration hearing wasn’t finished.

FCE Benefit Administrators Inc., a third-party benefits administrator, agreed to administer health insurance policies underwritten by Standard Security Life Insurance Co. of New York and Madison National Life Insurance Co. The life insurers terminated the agreement, alleging that FCE had breached it, essentially by doing a bad job. They initiated arbitration and FCE counterclaimed, claiming the insurers wrongfully terminated the agreement.

Before the arbitration, FCE sought a continuance for discovery and to amend its counterclaim. The panel denied the request for a continuance, but granted the request to amend. In addition, the panel explained that FCE’s counterclaims would be presented at a second phase of the arbitration at which FCE would also be required to produce certain documents.

The parties proceeded to arbitration and the panel issued a “Partial Final Award” in favor of the insurers, concluding that the insurers were within their rights to terminate the agreement. The panel awarded the insurers nearly $5.4 million and determined that “[a]ll other claims for relief by the parties [were] denied.” The insurers sought to confirm the award.

The district court dismissed the insurers’ claim for confirmation for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It explained that courts lack jurisdiction to confirm an award when the arbitrators’ work was unfinished. Although the award in this case had resolved the insurers’ claim and denied all other claims, it was “undisputed that the Panel still ha[d] left to adjudicate, at a minimum, FCE’s counterclaim against” the insurers. All parties had contemplated a “Phase II.”

Standard Sec. Life Ins. Co. of New York v. FCE Benefit Adm’rs, Inc., No. 19 CV 64 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 13, 2019).

Court Rejects Attempt to Relitigate Arbitration Award

by

The California Court of Appeal (Fourth District) recently rejected a dissatisfied litigant’s attempt to relitigate an arbitration decision that went against it to the tune of more than $18 million.

An employee of American Claims Management Inc. (ACM), a third-party administrator hired by QBE Insurance Corp. (QBE) to manage QBE’s claims, had a major case of the Mondays and apparently neglected to inform QBE about a demand for a $30,000 policy limit following a car accident. As a result of that “oops,” QBE paid $15 million to settle the claim. QBE then sued ACM for breach of contract. The parties arbitrated the dispute. An arbitration panel awarded QBE nearly $18.5 million.

QBE then petitioned a California trial court to confirm the arbitration award. ACM opposed. The court sided with QBE and confirmed the award, noting ACM appeared to be attempting to relitigate the arbitration award because it did not agree with the panel’s decision. ACM appealed. It raised a number of arguments. Specifically, ACM asserted that the arbitration panel had exceeded its powers by, for example, failing to cite California law, creating law that violated California law, awarding way too much money, and ignoring the Federal Arbitration Act. The appellate court didn’t quite see things ACM’s way, however. It noted that its review was exceptionally narrow and that it could only correct an arbitration award when the arbitrators “exceeded their powers but the award may be corrected without affecting the merits of the decision” (i.e., if the decision was “so utterly irrational that it amounts to an arbitrary remaking of the contract between the parties”). While ACM had couched its arguments in terms of exceeding power, the court concluded that ACM’s “claims amount[ed] to nothing more than assertions of legal error.”

The morals of this case: (1) if you’re a claims administrator, promptly report the claims that come in; and (2) don’t be fooled into thinking that claiming an arbitration panel “exceeded its powers” is a magic password to judicial review.

QBE Ins. Corp. v. Am. Claims Mgmt., Inc., No. D073345 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 4, 2019), reh’g denied (Feb. 27, 2019).

Tenth Circuit Affirms Partial Enforcement of Arbitration Clause

by

The Tenth Circuit recently affirmed a district court’s decision partially compelling arbitration. Jesse Romero took out three title loans with TitleMax of New Mexico, Inc. Romero used his third loan to pay off his second loan and his second loan to pay off his first loan. Each loan was related to the same car and each loan agreement contained an identical arbitration clause. The clause was broadly worded to cover “Disputes.” However, the clause stated it did not apply to “disputes about the validity, coverage, or scope of” the arbitration clause. The loan agreements also contained an opt-out provision allowing the party to opt out of the arbitration clause if the borrower provided notice to TitleMax within 60 days of taking out the loan. Romero did not opt out of the arbitration clause in his first or second loan agreements, but elected to opt out of the clause in his third agreement. He then filed a putative class action asserting that TitleMax’s practices violated various New Mexico consumer protection statutes.

TitleMax removed the case to federal court and sought to invoke the arbitration provision and compel all of Romero’s claims to be arbitrated. The district court agreed that arbitration was proper with respect to Romero’s first and second loan agreements because Romero had not opted out of the arbitration clauses in those agreements. The court concluded, however, that Romero had properly opted out of the arbitration clause in the third agreement and accordingly, declined to compel arbitration with respect to Romero’s claims based on that agreement. The district court declined to rule on arbitration with respect to putative class members who were not before the court.

The Tenth Circuit affirmed. It first noted that the provision covered disputes broadly but also that the clause gave the court broad authority to interpret the clause. The court rejected TitleMax’s argument that Romero did not properly opt out of the clause in the third agreement and that the third agreement was a refinancing of the second agreement, which Romero had not opted out of and therefore required an arbitrator to determine whether Romero’s claims regarding his third agreement were subject to arbitration. The court explained that the arbitration clause gave the court the authority to interpret the arbitration provision. The court noted that each agreement was separate and contained its own (identical) arbitration clause.

Romero v. TitleMax of New Mexico, Inc., No. 18-2077 (10th Cir. Feb. 5, 2019)