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

COURT RULES AGAINST CLAIM THAT PARTY-APPOINTED ARBITRATOR IN THREE MEMBER PANEL WAS IMPARTIAL

by

Employers Insurance Co. of Wausau brought a petition in Wisconsin Federal Court, in connection with an arbitration proceeding arising from a reinsurance dispute, seeking to have the Court appoint the neutral third arbitrator as the parties’ chosen arbitrators were unable to do so. The respondents cross-petitioned, alleging that (1) enforcement of the arbitration provision was barred by the statute of limitations, estoppel and laches; and (2) the respondents’ party-appointed arbitrator was not impartial and should be disqualified. The Court granted the petition and appointed a neutral third arbitrator, and denied the cross-petition in its entirety, finding that the questions about statutes of limitations and laches should be arbitrated and that there was no showing that the respondents’ selected arbitrator was biased. The cross-petitioners moved for reconsideration of the Order, which motion was denied by Order dated October 23, 2009. The cross-petitioners thereafter filed Notice of Appeal to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Employers Insurance Company of Wausau v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds of London, No. 09-cv-201 (W.D. Wis. Sept. 28, 2009).

This post written by John Pitblado.

SPECIAL FOCUS: THIRD CIRCUIT TELENOR DECISION REGARDING THE PRECLUSIVE EFFECT OF A COLLUSIVE FOREIGN COURT JUDGMENT AND THE NECESSITY FOR A TRIAL TO DETERMINE THE ARBITRABILITY OF A DISPUTE

by

On October 26, 2009 we posted a brief item on Telenor Mobile Communications AS v. Altimo Holdings & Investments Limited, 07-4974 (2d Cir. Oct. 8, 2009), in which the Third Circuit held that: (1) the district court did not err in not holding a trial to determine whether a dispute before it was arbitrable based upon a dispute as to whether the person who signed the contract containing an arbitration provision had apparent authority to sign the document on behalf of a corporate party, when the factual record clearly demonstrated that the signer had apparent authority to do so; and (2) the district court did not act in manifest disregard of law by confirming an arbitration award that failed to give preclusive effect to a collusive judgment of a Ukrainian court adjudicating an issue before the arbitration panel. Blogmaster Rollie Goss submits a more detailed SPECIAL FOCUS post on this interesting case.

This post written by Rollie Goss.

SECOND CIRCUIT AFFIRMS CONTEMPT ORDER IN KYISTAR DISPUTE

by

In a companion opinion to the Second Circuit affirming the district court’s grant of a motion to confirm the final arbitral award in a dispute involving Kyivstar G.S.M. (“Kyivstar”) (see our October 26, 2009 post), a Ukrainian mobile telecommunications company, the Second Circuit has affirmed the decision of the district court finding Storm LLC (“Storm”) and its corporate parents (collectively, the “Respondents”) in civil contempt for the failure to comply with the final arbitration award and denying the Respondents’ motion for an order to amend the contempt order to delay sanctions and eliminate the requirement that Storm deposit its shares of Kyivstar with the court to secure compliance with the award.

In this appeal, Storm’s corporate parents disputed the determination that they were alter egos of Storm, which made them jointly liable for contempt, and the conclusion that the award required Storm’s affiliates to divest their interest from a Turkish telecommunications company rather than Astelit, LLC, a Ukrainian telecommunications company, and asked the circuit court to remand the divestiture question to the arbitration panel for clarification. The Second Circuit affirmed the decisions of the district court, stating that the findings of fact supported the conclusion that the corporate parents were alter egos of Storm and concluding that no support existed for a remand of the divestiture question because the award was unambiguous and the district court’s legal analysis was correct. Telenor Mobile Communications AS v. Storm LLC, No. 07-6929 (2d Cir. October 8, 2009).

This post written by Dan Crisp.

COURT OF APPEAL ADDRESSES PRECLUSIVE EFFECT OF COLLUSIVE FOREIGN COURT JUDGMENT AND PROCESS FOR DETERMINING ARBITRABILITY OF DISPUTE

by

It is not unusual for there to be parallel or serial legal proceedings in arbitration disputes, and the preclusive effect of the first matter to go to a final decision has resulted in a number of opinions addressing the application of the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel in arbitration proceedings. In Telnor Mobile Communications AS v. Altimo Holdings & Investments Limited, 07-4974 (2d Cir. Oct. 8, 2009), the Court held that: (1) the district court did not err in not holding a trial to determine whether a dispute before it was arbitrable based upon a dispute as to whether the person who signed the contract containing an arbitration provision had apparent authority to sign the document on behalf of a corporate party, when the factual record clearly demonstrated that the signer had apparent authority to do so; and (2) the district court did not act in manifest disregard of law by confirming an arbitration award that failed to give preclusive effect to a collusive judgment of a Ukrainian court adjudicating an issue before the arbitration panel.

This post written by Rollie Goss.

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DENIES MOTION TO AMEND: HOLDS CLAIM WOULD BE FUTILE

by

On August 24, 2009, the Eastern District of New York ruled on plaintiff Callon Petroleum’s motion to amend its complaint by adding a statutory claim for punitive damages based on defendant National Indemnity’s bad faith failure to make a timely payment following the submission of the bond claim in the action. This action arose out of a judgment Callon obtained against its reinsurer Frontier Insurance Company in the form of a surety bond Frontier issued to Wood Energy Corporation. Defendant moved to dismiss plaintiff’s claims since it was not a party to the surety bond. The motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part, and over a year and a half later plaintiff moved to include the statutory claim.

Applying New York’s “center of gravity/grouping of contacts analysis,” the court concluded that New York law should be applied. The court noted that the reinsurance contract was negotiated and entered in New York, the place of performance was New York, and one of the contracting parties (Frontier) is domiciled in New York. Additionally, the arbitration clause in the contract requires all arbitration to take place in New York. Having determined that New York law should apply, the court denied the motion to amend, holding that the claim would be futile under New York law. Callon Petroleum Co. v. Nat’l Indem. Co., Case No. 06-CV-0573, (E.D. N.Y. Aug. 24, 2009).

This post written by John Black.