• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

  • About
    • Events
  • Articles
    • Treaty Tips
    • Special Focus
    • Market
  • Contact
  • Exclusive Content
    • Blog Staff Picks
    • Cat Risks
    • Regulatory Modernization
    • Webinars
  • Subscribe
You are here: Home / Archives for Arbitration / Court Decisions / Arbitration Process Issues

Arbitration Process Issues

Court bars run-off administrator from arbitration

November 14, 2006 by Carlton Fields

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.

Filed Under: Arbitration Process Issues, Week's Best Posts

Court holds that Petition challenging arbitration does not have to be filed in District in which contract states that arbitration shall be held

October 26, 2006 by Carlton Fields

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.

Filed Under: Arbitration Process Issues

Claims against interpleaded policy limits not subject to arbitration provision

October 25, 2006 by Carlton Fields

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).

Filed Under: Arbitration Process Issues, Week's Best Posts

Court enforces agreement regarding appointment of arbitrators

October 19, 2006 by Carlton Fields

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).

Filed Under: Arbitration Process Issues

Court enforces contractual arbitrator appointment procedure and holds that arbitrators should decide whether to consolidate multiple arbitrations

October 19, 2006 by Carlton Fields

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).

Filed Under: Arbitration Process Issues

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 195
  • Page 196
  • Page 197
  • Page 198
  • Page 199
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 202
  • Go to Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Carlton Fields Logo

A blog focused on reinsurance and arbitration law and practice by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Focused Topics

Hot Topics

Read the results of Artemis’ latest survey of reinsurance market professionals concerning the state of the market and their intentions for 2019.

Recent Updates

Market (1/27/2019)
Articles (1/2/2019)

See our advanced search tips.

Subscribe

If you would like to receive updates to Reinsurance Focus® by email, visit our Subscription page.
© 2008–2025 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · Disclaimers and Conditions of Use

Reinsurance Focus® is a registered service mark of Carlton Fields. All Rights Reserved.

Please send comments and questions to the Reinsurance Focus Administrators

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.