Arbitration Process Issues

ONLY ARBITRATOR, NOT FEDERAL COURT, CAN DETERMINE PRECLUSIVE EFFECT OF CONFIRMED ARBITRATION AWARD

March 11, 2014 by Carlton Fields

In a case of first impression in the First Circuit, Employers Insurance Company of Wausau and National Casualty Company (“Wausau”), two of three reinsurers under identical agreements with OneBeacon American Insurance Co. (“OneBeacon”), petitioned a federal court for a declaration that a prior arbitration award between One Beacon and the third reinsurer had preclusive effect over OneBeacon’s subsequent demand for arbitration against Wausau. The district court dismissed the action, agreeing with OneBeacon that a determination of the preclusive effect of the arbitration award itself was arbitrable. On appeal, Wausau argued that because the federal court confirmed the prior arbitration award, thus affording that award the same “force and effect” as any other federal court judgment pursuant 9 U.S.C. §13, then only the federal court could determine its preclusive effect. The First Circuit rejected this argument, noting that an arbitration award is distinct from the federal judgment confirming the award. Because a federal court’s review of an arbitration award does not include a review of the merits or legal basis of the award, which would be required in order to determine its preclusive effect, the First Circuit concluded that such a determination fell outside the purview of the federal court. Employers Insurance Company of Wausau and National Casualty Company v. OneBeacon American Insurance Co., et. al., Case No. 13-1913 (1st Cir. Feb. 26, 2014).

This post written by Leonor Lagomasino.

See our disclaimer.

FEDERAL POLICY FAVORING ARBITRATION TRUMPS CHOICE-OF-LAW CLAUSE

March 5, 2014 by Carlton Fields

When an arrangement to jointly design health insurance products went sour, the product company (“PBG”) brought breach of contract and tort claims against its insurance agents. Acknowledging an existing arbitration agreement, PBG admitted that the contract claims should be arbitrated, but tried to keep the tort claims alive in the judicial system based on an Iowa choice-of law provision. PBG argued that the provision evinced the parties’ intent that an Iowa statute carving out tort claims from valid arbitration clauses should apply. Finding no ambiguity in the arbitration agreement that would allow for consideration of extrinsic evidence like the Iowa statute, and relying on the strong federal policy favoring arbitration, the court disagreed and ordered all claims, contract and tort, to arbitration. Pinnacle Benefits Group, LLC v. American Republic Insurance Company, Case No. 1:13CV186 (M.D.N.C. Dec. 13, 2013).

This post written by Abigail Kortz.

See our disclaimer.

COURT CONFIRMS ARBITRATION AWARD IN REINSURANCE BILLING DISPUTE

February 24, 2014 by Carlton Fields

A New York federal district court affirmed an arbitration award in favor of R&Q Reinsurance Company as against its cedent, Utica Mutual, in a reinsurance dispute arising from certificates issued by R&Q reinsuring certain umbrella coverage Utica had written covering asbestos-related exposure of its insured. The parties began arbitrating a billing dispute in 2008 which, as of May, 2013, involved more than $21.7 million in disputed amounts. Utica sought coverage for four categories of loss: indemnity, defense, “orphan shares,” and declaratory judgment expense. The panel heard the case and decided in Utica’s favor only on the first category, and in R&Q’s favor on the other three. The panel did not, however, indicate in its award the precise amount owed to Utica by R&Q for the indemnity losses. Both parties made various post-award motions for clarification, but Utica never sought in any of these motions for the panel to set out the precise amount Utica was owed under the first category of loss which it was awarded. R&Q thereafter brought an action in court to confirm the award. The court found that Utica’s failure to seek clarification of the amount with the panel precluded vacatur of the award and that, “[f]or better or worse, the parties to this arbitration tasked the arbitral panel with resolving their dispute at a conceptual, rather than a mathematical, level.” R&Q Reinsurance Co. v. Utica Mutual Insurance Co., Case No. 13-Civ-8013 (USDC S.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2014).

This post written by John Pitblado.

See our disclaimer.

ARBITRATOR IMPROPRIETIES: A EDUCATIONAL LAUNDRY LIST

February 20, 2014 by Carlton Fields

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed the U.S. District Court of Nevada’s confirmation of an arbitration award allocating attorneys’ fees and denial of a motion to vacate the award. After first holding, in a separate opinion, that parties may not waive or eliminate judicial review of arbitration awards under Section 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act, the court next communicated a laundry list of reasons for which a district court may vacate an arbitration award: (1) if the arbitrator’s decision is procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means; (2) if the arbitrator was evidently partial or actually biased; (3) if mediation and related fund transfers are undisclosed; (4) if communications are made ex parte; (5) if the arbitrator exceeds arbitral jurisdiction or issues biased rulings; and (6) if the arbitrator fails to disclose material conflicts of interest. Finding that the district court correctly concluded that the arbitrator had not engaged in any such misconduct and that no prejudice was shown in any event, the Ninth Circuit affirmed. In re Wal-Mart Wage and Hour Employment Practices Litigation, No. 2:06-cv-00225-PMP-PAL (9th Cir. Dec. 17, 2013).

This post written by Kyle Whitehead.

See our disclaimer.

MICROSOFT TAKES HOME THE GOLD IN ARBITRATION AGAINST YAHOO!

February 19, 2014 by Carlton Fields

For the past several years, Yahoo! has been merging its search engine and search ads system, Panama, with Microsoft’s Bing search engine. Yahoo! “paused” its efforts to integrate with Microsoft in Taiwan and Hong Kong when Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer announced that he plans to step down. Microsoft considered this “pause” a breach of their agreement with Yahoo! and initiated an emergency arbitration in which the arbitrator ordered Yahoo! to “use all efforts” to complete the Taiwan and Hong Kong transitions in 2013. Yahoo! moved to vacate the award in the S.D.N.Y. on the basis that the injunctive relief granted to Microsoft was not interim relief as authorized by the arbitration agreement, but was final. The court denied Yahoo!’s petition and confirmed the arbitration award because the arbitrator had a “colorable basis” for concluding that an injunction was necessary to restore the status quo. Yahoo!, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation, Case No. 13-7237 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 21, 2013).

This post written by Abigail Kortz.

See our disclaimer.