Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

You are here: Home / Archives for Michael Wolgin

Michael Wolgin

Supreme Court Upholds Employee Individualized Arbitration Agreements Against Challenges Based On The National Labor Relations Act

by

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that agreements between an employer and an employee providing for individualized arbitration do not violate the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). We previously reported on the conflicting cases pending before the Supreme Court here.

Justice Gorsuch, writing for the Court, explained that Congress instructed the courts to uphold arbitration agreements through the Federal Arbitration Act and nothing in the NLRA (or its predecessor, the Norris-La Guardia Act) requires the contrary. The dissent, written by Justice Ginsberg, focuses in large part on the policy motivating the enactment of the NLRA, and finds that the “adhesive waivers” at issue here were the type of employer action the NLRA was meant to counteract. Justice Ginsberg’s dissent argues that class actions are the type of “other concerted activities for the purpose of … mutual aid or protection” shielded by § 7 of the NLRA. Justice Gorsuch, however, points out that § 7 “focuses on the right to organize unions and bargain collectively…. But it does not express approval or disapproval of arbitration. It does not mention class or collective action procedures. It does not even hint at a wish to displace the Arbitration Act – let alone accomplish that much clearly and manifestly, as our precedents demand.” Although the NLRA protects employees’ right to organize unions, it does not speak to their right to arbitrate collectively. Therefore it does not conflict with and override the FAA. As such, the NLRA presented no obstacle to the Court’s enforcement of the “liberal federal policy favoring arbitration agreements” embodied in the FAA. Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, Case No. 16-285 (USSC 2018).

This post written by Benjamin E. Stearns.

See our disclaimer.

Tax Counsel Ordered To Produce Documents Related To Odyssey Reinsurance’s Continuing Quest To Collect $3.2 Million Default Judgment Against Richard And Diane Nagby

by

Odyssey Reinsurance Company (“Odyssey”) has obtained an order compelling John Scannell to produce subpoenaed documents related to Odyssey’s efforts to collect a $3.2 million judgment rendered against Richard and Diane Nagby. The judgment stems from a reinsurance contract between Odyssey and Cal-Regent Insurance Services. We previously wrote about this dispute here.

Scannell objected that the documents were protected by California’s taxpayer privilege. California courts have determined the state’s taxation statutes provide the privilege “to encourage the voluntary filing of tax returns and truthful reporting of income,” thereby facilitating tax collection. The privilege may be overcome where it is intentionally waived, the gravamen of the lawsuit is inconsistent with the privilege, or by a public policy “greater than that of the confidentiality of tax returns.”

The court found the privilege was overcome in this matter, which it described as an effort by Odyssey “to recover that money from sources that it contends have actively endeavored to thwart collection efforts.” As such, the Nagby’s privacy concerns “shrink in the shadow of the public policy subversion” that would result if their effort to hide behind the privilege were successful.

In addition, the court determined that Scannell had waived any objection to the subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 by failing to raise it within 14 days of service of the subpoena. The waiver may be overcome by demonstrating that the failure to assert the objection was due to unusual circumstances and a good cause, but Scannell could not meet either requirement. Odyssey Reinsurance Co. v. Nagby, Case No. 16-CV-3038-BTM (USDC S.D. Cal. March 29, 2018).

This post written by Benjamin E. Stearns.

See our disclaimer.

Kansas Enacts Captive Insurance Act

by

On April 12, 2018, Kansas Governor Jeff Colyer signed into law SB 410– a bill establishing the Captive Insurance Act, which creates two new types of captives – branch and special purpose – and specifies the regulatory structure for each. The bill also raises the minimum capital and surplus requirements a pure captive insurance company must possess and maintain from $100,000 to $250,000.

The bill also creates the Captive Insurance Regulatory and Supervision Fund within the State Treasury and amends current insurance laws relating to companies subject to premium taxes by specifying the tax rate for direct premiums and assumed reinsurance premiums, as well as the maximum tax for each year, and requiring the tax to be calculated annually unless prorated for multi-year policies or contracts.

The bill also permits the insurance commissioner to adopt rules and regulations establishing standards for pure captives. KS SB 410 (April 12, 2018) (regulation and legislative analysis).

This post written by Gail Jankowski.

See our disclaimer.

Decade-Long Battle Between Policyholder, Reinsurer, And Retrocessionaire To Continue As Reinsurer Files Notice Of Appeal

by

A Brazilian mining and steelmaking company (Companhia Siderurgica Nacional, S.A. (“CSN”)), a Brazilian insurance company (IRB Brazil Resseguros, S.A. (“IRB”)), and an American insurance company (National Indemnity Company (“NICO”)) have been locked in battle for a decade over liability stemming from a $167 million loss suffered by CSN. We have previously written about this litigation here.

On January 23rd, the Southern District of New York ordered IRB to pay NICO $5 million pursuant to an arbitration award. On February 22, 2018 IRB appealed this order to the Second Circuit. On March 26th a $5.55 million supersedeas bond was filed with the court on behalf of IRB to stay execution of the order pending the outcome of the appeal. National Indemnity Co. v. IRB Brazil Resseguros, S.A., No. 15-CV-3975 (USDC S.D.N.Y. Feb. 22, 2018 & March 26, 2018).

This post written by Benjamin E. Stearns.
See our disclaimer.

Fifth Circuit Affirms Federal Court’s Injunction Of State Court Proceeding That Attempted To Stay Arbitration

by

The case originated from the alleged violation of a noncompete and nonsolicitation agreement between the Shaw Group, later partially acquired by Aptim Corporation, and Dorsey McCall, its former employee. Shaw originally filed the case in state court, but after Aptim’s acquisition, Shaw moved to dismiss its state action while Aptim pursued a federal court action to enforce the arbitration clause in McCall’s employment contract Aptim initiated arbitration, but the state court ordered the arbitration stayed, finding that Shaw and Aptim waived arbitration by filing suit in state court. The district court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, however, declined to abstain from proceeding with its case, and then compelled arbitration and entered an order staying the state court proceeding. McCall appealed.

On appeal, the Fifth Circuit explained that “[w]hether to abstain is not a question answered by the recitation of ‘a mechanical checklist’ but instead rests ‘on a careful balancing of the important factors as they apply in a given case, with the balance heavily weighted in favor of the exercise of jurisdiction.’” The Fifth Circuit weighed the factors and affirmed the district court’s decision against abstention based in part on the strong federal policy favoring arbitration. Notably, the Fifth Circuit was not persuaded by the fact that the state court’s order staying arbitration preceded the federal court’s ruling compelling arbitration, as the former was not a final judgment. The Fifth Circuit also agreed with the district court that Aptim had not waived arbitration since Aptim demanded arbitration only one month after the state court action had begun, and McCall could not demonstrate the he was prejudiced. Aptim Corp. v. McCall, Case No. 17-30772 (USDC E.D. La. Apr. 17, 2018).

This post written by Gail Jankowski.

See our disclaimer.