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

NURSING HOME ARBITRATION AGREEMENT UPHELD

by

A former Air Force intelligence officer with a bachelor’s degree in English and 27 years of experience as a claims examiner and manager for an insurance company, pursuant to a power of attorney and health care directive, signed papers admitting his 91-year old father to a nursing home. The arbitration provision was presented as a separate document, was not a requirement for admission and was discussed prior to its execution. After the father passed away and negligence claims were filed, a motion to compel arbitration was filed, and the validity of the arbitration provision was contested. The Massachusetts Supreme Court, applying both Massachusetts law and the Federal Arbitration Act, found that the arbitration agreement was enforceable, and not unconscionable. Some of the defendants were parties to the arbitration agreement, while others were not. The lower courts had held that it was inequitable and inefficient to force the plaintiff to litigate against some defendants in court and others in arbitration, but the Supreme Court disagreed, holding that this was “the necessary result of the choice that Miller made when he signed the arbitration agreement.” Miller v. Cotter, 448 Mass. 671 (Mass. 2007).

This post written by Rollie Goss.

SUPREME COURT HEARS ORAL ARGUMENT ON WHETHER PARTIES MAY SUPPLEMENT ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS BEYOND FAA’S VACATUR STANDARDS

by

The Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments on whether an arbitration agreement may provide for more expansive judicial review of an arbitration award than the narrow standard of review provided for in the Federal Arbitration Act. This case arose out of a property lease dispute between Mattel, the well-known toy manufacturer, and its landlord, Hall Street Associates. The parties agreed to arbitrate the dispute pursuant to the FAA procedures, but also agreed that a district court could overrule the arbitrator’s decision if the arbitrator’s “conclusions of law [we]re erroneous.”

The Ninth Circuit barred this type of court review, reasoning that private parties cannot expand the Congressionally-determined role of courts in reviewing arbitration awards. In contrast, the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Circuits appear to have interpreted the FAA’s vacatur standards as non-exclusive standards which parties may supplement by agreement. While the Seventh Circuit has not squarely addressed the issue, it stated in dicta that the parties “cannot contract for a judicial review” of a labor arbitration award “because federal jurisdiction cannot be created by contract.”

After hearing oral arguments on the issue, the Supreme Court asked for additional briefing on three issues: (1) whether authority exists outside the FAA under which a party to litigation begun without reliance on the FAA may enforce a provision for judicial review of an arbitration award; (2) if such authority does exist, did the parties, in agreeing to arbitrate, rely in whole or part on that authority; and (3) whether the petitioner waived any reliance on authority outside the FAA for enforcing the judicial review provision of the parties’ arbitration agreement.

Hall Street Associates, LLC v. Mattel, Inc., No. 06-989.

This post written by Lynn Hawkins.

COURT CONFIRMS $443.5 MILLION ARBITRATION AWARD AND ORDERS $600 MILLION BOND

by

The California Department of Insurance Conservation and Liquidation Office won a $443.5 million dollar arbitration award in favor of five Superior National Insurance Companies in liquidation. The award was against the United States Life Insurance Company, a subsidiary of AIG.

The arbitration arose out of a dispute of a 1998 reinsurance contract between U.S. Life and the five Superior National Companies. In 1999, U.S. Life initiated arbitration proceedings seeking rescission of the reinsurance contract, alleging misrepresentation and nondisclosure. The following year, Superior National, having suffered significant losses from its workers’ compensation business, became insolvent. California’s Insurance Commissioner seized the companies and placed them in conservation.

The arbitration panel denied U.S. Life’s claim for rescission, which was affirmed by the federal district court and Ninth Circuit. The arbitration panel then convened a second phase of arbitration to determine the amount of damages. The Final Arbitration Award ordered U.S. Life to pay the Superior National companies $443,515,724.

Following the district court’s confirmation of the award, the court entered a memorandum opinion requiring that U.S. Life post a $600 million dollar supersedeas bond (Order on bond memorandum decision) to provide adequate security for the judgment pending appeal. United States Life Ins. Co. v. Superior Nat'l. Ins. Co., Case No. 07-850 (USDC C.D. Cal.). This case is a consolidation of two cases.

This post written by Lynn Hawkins.

ARBITRATION AWARD CAN NOT BE CORRECTED TO REFLECT FACTS NOT PRESENTED TO ARBITRATOR; PRE-JUDGMENT INTEREST GOVERNED BY STATE LAW

by

Section 11(a) of the Federal Arbitration Act permits a district court to correct an “evident material mistake in the description of any person, thing, or property referred to in an award.” A district court “corrected” an arbitration award under the authority of that section to reflect that the party which lost the arbitration had paid substantially all of the liability prior to the entry of the award, even though it had been stipulated in the arbitration that the payment had not been made. The court of appeals reversed, finding that an award could be corrected under this section only if the arbitrator had made a mistake by “understanding wrongly” or “recognizing or identifying incorrectly.” The court held that ignorance, or lack of knowledge, because the parties did not convey a fact to the arbitrator, did not qualify as a mistake. The court of appeal also reversed a decision of the district court not to award pre-judgment interest, which was based upon federal law, holding that in a matter in which jurisdiction is based upon diversity of citizenship, questions relating to pre-judgment interest are governed by applicable state law. AIG Baker Sterling Heights, LLP v. American Multi-Cinema, Inc., No. 07-10130 (11th Cir. Nov. 28, 2007).

This post written by Rollie Goss.

RIGHT TO CLASS ARBITRATION WITHIN PROVINCE OF ARBITRATOR, NOT COURT

by

This dispute relates to whether a district court has authority to make a class arbitration determination based on agreements entered into between the respective parties. The court concluded that only the arbitrator had authority to determine whether the arbitration provisions permitted class arbitration.

Respondents filed a class action complaint with the American Arbitration Association against Petitioner, Scout, alleging that Scout failed to properly compensate respondents pursuant to agreements signed between the parties and deceived respondents by engaging in unlawful business practices. All parties are involved in publishing information about high school, college, and professional sports. The complaint was filed on behalf of approximately 300 persons, companies, or other entities that owned or provided content for a website owned by Scout.

Respondents filed a ‘clause construction’ motion with the AAA arbitrator, seeking a ruling that class arbitration was authorized. Scout requested a stay and filed the present petition requesting the district court stay the class proceeding and compel respondents to pursue their arbitration claims individually. Recognizing that the Supreme Court, in Green Tree v. Bazzle, was faced with an arbitration provision that was silent on the issue of whether class arbitration was permitted, the district court concluded that the “dispositive issue before this Court is whether Green Tree applies to the facts of this case.” The court concluded that the present case was factually analogous and granted respondent’s motion to dismiss, leaving the question of whether to permit class arbitration to the arbitrator. Scout.com v. Bucknuts, Case No. 07-1444 (USDC W.D. Wash. Nov. 16, 2007).

This post written by Lynn Hawkins.