National Indemnity Company provided reinsurance to Seaton Insurance Company and Stonewall Insurance Company, both of which were in run-off. Castlewood, Inc. entered into an agreement with Seaton and Stonewall to provide administratrive services for the run-off of their business. When arbitrations commenced between NICO and Seaton and Stonewall on their reinsurance agreements, NICO sought to add Castlewood to the arbitrations, despite the lack of an arbitration agreement in Castlewood's agreements with Seaton and Stonewall. The Court granted Castlewood's request for a preliminary injunction preventing its addition to the arbitrations, subject to a $1 million injunction bond. Castlwood, Inc., v. National Indemnity Co., Case No. 06-6842 (USDC S. D. N.Y. Oct. 24, 2006). NICO sought to compel Castlewood to arbitrate based upon theories of assumption and estoppel, and because Castlewood's agreement provided that its administration of the run-off would not conflict with the reinsurance obligations of Seaton and Stonewall. The Court found this an insufficient basis to compel Castlewood's participation in arbitration.
Arbitration Process Issues
Court holds that Petition challenging arbitration does not have to be filed in District in which contract states that arbitration shall be held
Argonaut Insurance and Century Indemnity had 19 disputes encompassing multiple reinsurance agreements, which contained different arbitration site provisions. Argonaut filed a Petition in Century's home District challenging, inter alia, Century's attempt to force consolidated arbitration of the disputes. The Court has held that venue for the Petition was appropriate under the general venue statute, 28 U.S.C. section 1392, in the District in which Century maintains its home office, despite a provision in the applicable reinsurance agreement providing that arbitration of disputes under that particular reinsurance agreement should occur in New York City. Argonaut Insur. Co. v. Century Indemnity Co., Case No. 05-5355 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 28, 2006). Century contended that under section 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. section 4, venue for the action should have been in New York City.
Claims against interpleaded policy limits not subject to arbitration provision
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has held that the arbitration provision in two fiduciary liability insurance policies issued to Enron Corporation did not apply to require arbitration of competing claims asserted by multiple insureds to the limits of two policies that were interpleaded by the insurers. Tittle v. Enron Corp., Case No. 05-20380 (5th Cir. Sept. 1, 2006).
Court enforces agreement regarding appointment of arbitrators
A District Court has entered an Order to enforce the contractually agreed-upon procedure for appointing a third arbitrator in an insurance matter, setting deadlines for each step of the process. The Court also held that whether arbitrations regarding four different insurance agreements should be consolidated was a matter to be decided by the arbitrators. Clearwater Insurance Co. v. Granite State Insurance Co., Case No. 06-4472 (USDC N.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2006).
Court enforces contractual arbitrator appointment procedure and holds that arbitrators should decide whether to consolidate multiple arbitrations
A District Court has entered an Order to enforce the contractually agreed-upon procedure for appointing a third arbitrator in an insurance matter, setting deadlines for each step of the process. The Court also held that whether arbitrations regarding four different insurance agreements should be consolidated was a matter to be decided by the arbitrators. Clearwater Insurance Co. v. Granite State Insurance Co., Case No. 06-4472 (USDC N.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2006).