Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

You are here: Home / Archives for Arbitration / Court Decisions / Arbitration Process Issues

Arbitration Process Issues

ARBITRATION WITH SOME PLAINTIFFS BUT NOT OTHERS DENIED DUE TO RISK OF CONFLICTING RULINGS

by

In an action brought by twenty-three investors against a brokerage related to investment fraud by the broker, a California appellate court rejected the brokerage’s attempt to arbitrate with the twelve investors with whom the brokerage had signed client agreements and stay the court action as to the remaining investors. While the client agreements at issue contained express agreements to arbitrate “any and all controversies or claims,” California law provides that a court should not order arbitration where: (1) a party to the arbitration agreement is contemporaneously a party to a pending court action arising out of the same transaction; and (2) where “there is a possibility of conflicting rulings on a common issue of law or fact.” The court was not persuaded by the brokerage’s argument that no risk of conflicting rulings existed, where the twelve investors, who had signed client agreements, had a “different legal standing” than the eleven investors who were non-clients. The court explained that the brokerage failed to show how the client/non-client distinction was relevant and that, on the contrary, “a legal duty may exist outside of a written agreement.” Cianci v. Centaurus Financial, Inc., Case No. B222474 (Cal. Ct. App. May 5, 2011).

This post written by Michael Wolgin.

ARBITRATION COMPELLED DESPITE CLAIM OF INVALIDITY

by

In response to Plaintiff Gordon Hook’s action to enjoin UBS from enforcing a promissory note it required Hook to execute after he commenced his employment at UBS, the company moved to compel arbitration and for dismissal or stay pending completion of arbitration. Hook, for his part, moved for a preliminary injunction to enjoin UBS from enforcing the arbitration provisions of the promissory note and from proceeding with the pending arbitration before FINRA. The US District Court for the District of Connecticut granted UBS’s motion to compel arbitration and further dismissed the action pending arbitration. The Court found specifically that the arbitration provision was valid and that it required that all challenges to the validity of the promissory note (and the arbitration provision itself) must be determined by arbitrators. This included all of Hook’s claims of fraudulent inducement, conversion, and statutory theft. Hook’s motion for an injunction was denied, as he failed to demonstrate the likelihood of irreparable harm. Accordingly, the Court closed the case. Hook v. UBS Fin. Servs., Case No. 10-950 (USDC D. Conn. May 4, 2011).

This post written by John Black.

ARBITRATION VENUE PROVISION NOT UNCONSCIONABLE

by

Plaintiff Ellison Framing Inc. recently filed a complaint with the California Department of Insurance against Zurich American Insurance claiming that Zurich had overcharged Ellison by almost $200,000 in improper fees pursuant to a workers compensation insurance plan. Zurich subsequently made a demand for arbitration, alleging nearly $570,000 in unpaid deductibles. Ellison responded by filing a suit in California Superior Court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, contending that the venue provision, which provides that arbitration should occur in Schaumburg, Illinois, Zurich’s principal place of business, was unconscionable. Zurich removed the action to Federal Court and submitted a motion to stay the action and compel arbitration. The US District Court for the Eastern District of California granted Zurich’s motion finding that the American Arbitration Association’s decision as to venue may not be reversed because the AAA met the minimum standards for fair dealing. Further, plaintiff had not met its burden in claiming that the arbitration venue provision was unconscionable. Accordingly, the Court stayed the action, and found that plaintiff’s claim for fraud fell with the scope of arbitration. Zurich was additionally found not to have waived its right to seek relief. Ellison Framing, Inc. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., Case No. 11-0122 (USDC E.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2011).

This post written by John Black.

WHETHER ARBITRATIONS SHOULD BE CONSOLIDATED IS A PROCEDURAL MATTER FOR AN ARBITRATION PANEL TO DECIDE

by

A federal district court denied reinsurer Allstate’s motion to compel two separate arbitrations and granted insurer Liberty Mutual’s cross-motion to compel Allstate to select an umpire to complete an arbitration panel that, in turn, could decide how many arbitration proceedings should be held. Allstate had filed two arbitration demands based on distinct issues and argued that the parties’ reinsurance treaties permitted each dispute to be arbitrated separately. Allstate further argued that the Federal Arbitration Act required that two arbitrations be held. The court denied Allstate’s request, however, reasoning that its job was to determine the validity and scope of the arbitration provision. The arbitrators should decide procedural questions related to the arbitration, including whether to consolidate the separately requested arbitration proceedings. Allstate Insurance Co. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., Case No. 11-10415 (USDC D. Mass. May 19, 2011).

This post written by Ben Seessel.

NO MANIFEST DISREGARD IN ATTORNEYS’ FEES AWARD

by

General Security and AequiCap were parties to a contingent commission agreement, by which AequiCap reinsured certain of General Security’s losses under a specified formula. The parties disputed whether AequiCap owed General Security approximately $400,000 under the agreement. General Security demanded arbitration. A three-arbitrator panel ruled in its favor, and also granted it an additional $200,000 for costs and attorneys fees. AequiCap petitioned for vacatur to the district court, arguing that the award of attorneys fees was in “manifest disregard” of the law. The district court found for General Security, noting that the arbitration agreement allowed the panel to order such remedies as it deems appropriate. The court therefore denied the petition to vacate, and granted General Security’s cross-motion to confirm the award. In re General Security National Insurance Co., Case No. 10-CV-8682 (USDC S.D.N.Y. Apr. 29, 2011).

This post written by John Pitblado.