Arbitration Process Issues

INSURER DENIED REQUEST TO ENJOIN SPEEDY ARBITRATION PROCEEDING

May 15, 2012 by Carlton Fields

Policyholder Nero filed a putative class action lawsuit against American Family Insurance Company, alleging common law and statutory claims. American Family moved to dismiss, asserting that the claims were subject to mandatory arbitration, among other grounds. Shortly thereafter, on March 1, Nero notified American Family that an arbitration hearing would be commencing on March 5 in a different state and in front of a single arbitrator. American Family sought a temporary restraining order from the court enjoining the arbitration. American Family argued that it did not have sufficient time to prepare and, furthermore, that the location and designation of a single arbitrator was contrary to the terms of the arbitration provision in Nero’s insurance policy. It further argued that it would be irreparably harmed by having to “oppose confirmation of an unjust arbitration award” in a different jurisdiction. The court denied American Family’s request. The court stated that American Family’s contention that the arbitrator would not follow the proper procedure for selecting arbitrators was only speculative, and, furthermore, that FAA section 10(a)(3) permits vacatur where an arbitrator wrongfully refuses to postpone an arbitration hearing. Nero v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., Case No. 11-02717 (USDC D. Colo. Mar. 2, 2012).

This post written by Ben Seessel.

See our disclaimer.

APPELLATE COURT REMANDS TO COMPEL ARBITRATION UNDER “DELEGATION PROVISION”

May 14, 2012 by Carlton Fields

Plaintiff sued her bank in Florida federal court for the manner in which she was charged overdraft fees. The bank moved to compel arbitration, but the district court found the agreement to arbitrate unconscionable and unenforceable. The bank appealed. After the Supreme Court decided AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, __ U.S. __, 131 S.Ct. 1740 (2011), the Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded for consideration in light thereof. The district court again refused to compel arbitration, avoiding an unconscionability finding, but nevertheless finding that the dispute did not come within the scope of the arbitration agreement. The bank again appealed and the Eleventh Circuit again reversed, finding the threshold issue of whether the dispute is arbitrable to be explicitly reserved for the arbitrator under the so-called “delegation provision” in the parties’ contract, which states that “[a]ny issue regarding whether a particular dispute or controversy is . . . subject to arbitration will be decided by the arbitrator.” In re Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, No. 11-14282 (11th Cir. March 21, 2012).

This post written by John Pitblado.

See our disclaimer.

SECOND CIRCUIT AFFIRMS ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISQUALIFY REINSURER’S ATTORNEYS

May 1, 2012 by Carlton Fields

In a matter involving an arbitration with a reinsurance company, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court’s order denying Utica Mutual Insurance Company’s motion to disqualify R & Q Reinsurance Company’s attorneys, the law firm of Chadbourne & Park, LLP. Utica had unsuccessfully argued to the district court that Chadbourne should be disqualified because a part-time associate had been exposed to Utica’s confidential information. The Second Circuit further affirmed the district court’s order unsealing certain confidential non-privileged information underlying Utica’s motion to disqualify, and the district court’s decision requiring R & Q to withdraw certain discovery requests that Utica had identified as suggesting an inference of Chadbourne’s improper knowledge of Utica’s confidential information. Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v. INA Reinsurance Co., No. 10-4164 (2d. Cir. Mar. 15, 2012) (See the district court disqualification and discovery orders).

This post written by Ben Seessel.

See our disclaimer.

COURT OF APPEALS RE-AFFIRMS ORDER DENYING MOTION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD, DISTINGUISHES STOLT-NIELSEN

April 30, 2012 by Carlton Fields

Dr. Ivan Sutter filed a putative class action complaint against Oxford Health Plans in state court, alleging that Oxford had improperly denied, underpaid, and delayed reimbursement of claims. The court granted Oxford’s motion to compel arbitration and ordered all procedural issues to be resolved by the arbitrator, including those pertaining to class certification. Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Stolt-Nielsen, the arbitrator ruled that the arbitration clause in Oxford’s primary care physician agreement authorized class arbitrations. The clause at issue provided that: “No civil action concerning any dispute arising under this Agreement shall be instituted before any court, and all such disputes shall be submitted to final and binding arbitration.” The district court denied Oxford’s motion to vacate and the Third Circuit affirmed.

Oxford sought reconsideration from the arbitrator after the Supreme Court held in Stolt-Nielsen that “a party may not be compelled under the FAA to submit to class arbitration unless there is a contractual basis for concluding that the party agreed to do so.” The arbitrator reaffirmed his decision, holding that the arbitration provision indicated that the parties had agreed to resolve disputes through class arbitrations because the clause’s first phrase was broad enough to encompass class actions, and the second phrase made clear that all disputes, including class actions, were to be arbitrated. The Third Circuit held that the arbitrator’s interpretation of the arbitration provision was not totally irrational, even after Stolt-Nielsen, and thus affirmed the district court’s denial of Oxford’s second motion to vacate. The Third Circuit held that Stolt-Nielsen was distinguishable because the parties in that case had stipulated that the arbitration provision was “silent” as to class arbitrations, i.e., that there was no agreement on whether disputes could be resolved by class arbitration. The court further stated that Stolt-Nielsen “did not establish a bright line rule that class arbitration is allowed only under an arbitration agreement that incants ‘class arbitration.’” Sutter v. Oxford Health Plans, LLC, No. 11-1773 (3d. Cir. Apr. 3, 2012).

This post written by Ben Seessel.

See our disclaimer.

COURT OF APPEALS VACATES $185 MILLION ARBITRATION AWARD WHERE CLAIMANT FAILED TO ABIDE BY TREATY’S PREREQUISITE OF BRINGING A LAWSUIT IN THE ARGENTINEAN COURTS

April 16, 2012 by Carlton Fields

The United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has vacated an arbitration award in excess of $185 million issued against the Republic of Argentina and in favor of a British company, BG Group, PLC, that had invested in gas distribution in Argentina. It reversed a district court order that, as we reported earlier, had confirmed the award. The court cited BG Group’s failure to abide by a provision in the governing Bilateral Investment Treaty between Argentina and the U.K. requiring disputes to be submitted to an Argentinean court and litigated for eighteen months without resolution before an arbitration could be commenced. The appellate court further rejected the arbitration panel’s decision that it would be “senseless” to comply with this provision, which the panel based on an opinion, rendered by a former Argentinean Attorney General and Minister of Justice, that it could take six years to resolve BG Group’s claims in the Argentinean courts. The court of appeals further held that the district court erred in determining that the arbitrators properly decided the threshold question of arbitrability because there was no clear and unmistakable evidence that the arbitrators should decide the issue where the precondition of bringing the dispute to court had not been met. Republic of Argentina v. BG Group, PLC, No. 11-7021 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 17, 2012).

This post written by Ben Seessel.

See our disclaimer.