A reinsurer (Sphere Drake Insurance Limited) which successfully persuaded an arbitration panel to accord collateral estoppel effect to a decision of the London, England, Commercial Court, has convinced a District Court to confirm the award, which avoided four excess of loss reinsurance slips. The London Commercial Court had determined that the four slips at issue in the arbitration had been procured through fraud by the reinsurer’s broker, and were void. The startling aspect of this decision is that the reinsured in the arbitration, Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, had not been a party to the London case. The Court found that the decision did not violate due process, since Lincoln was in “privity” with the broker party to the London case due to a similarity of interests. Sphere Drake Insurance Limited v. Lincoln National Life Insurance Co., Case no. 05-6411 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 13, 2006). Given the deference given to arbitration awards, it may be very difficult for Lincoln to obtain reversal of this decision on appeal. Further background is provided in Sphere Drake’s motion for confirmation of the arbitration award. The London Commercial Court decision (Sphere Drake v. EIU) was the subject of an earlier entry in this blog.
Confirmation / Vacation of Arbitration Awards
First Circuit announces harsh manifest disregard of law standard
The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has joined numerous other Circuits this year in announcing a harsh standard for vacating arbitration awards on the basis that they are in manifest disregard of the law. In McCarthy v. Citicorp Global Markets, Inc., Case No. 06-1001 (1st Cir. Sept. 19, 2006), the Court vacated a District Court Order that set aside an arbitration award. The Court of Appeal held that to prevail in establishing manifest disregard, “there must be some showing in the record, other than the result obtained, that the arbitrators knew the law and expressly disregarded it. … 'Disregard' implies that the arbitrators appreciated the existence of a governing legal rule but wilfully decided not to apply it.” The District Court had previously vacated a decision by the Panel and remanded with instructions, which it believed the Panel “might” have disregarded on remand. The Court of Appeal held that this was insufficient to vacate the Panel's second award, because, as stated by the Supreme Court in United Paperworkers Int'l Union v. Miusco, Inc., 484 U.S. 29, 38 (1987), courts “do not sit to hear claims of factual or legal error by an arbitrator as an appellate court does in reviewing decisions of lower courts.” The First Circuit concluded that even if legal error is “painfully clear, courts are not authorized to reconsider the merits of arbitration awards.”
NASD arbitration award by default confirmed
A US District Court has confirmed an arbitration award entered in an NASD arbitration in unusual circumstances: Petitioner failed to present any evidence in an attempt to force a postponement of the final hearing. The Panel denied the request for a postponement, at which time counsel for Petitioner left the hearing. The Panel reconvened the next day to permit Petitioner to offer evidence, which it failed to do. The Panel later dismissed the claims for lack of evidence. The Court found that Petitioner's failure to proceed was not misconduct by the Panel. Kober v. Kelly, Case No. 06-3341 (USDC S.D.N.Y. July 18, 2006).
Arbitration award confirmed over objection of regulator
In Koken v. Cologne Reinsurance (Barbados) Ltd., Case No. 98-0678 (USDC M.D. Pa. Aug. 23, 2006), a District Court reaffirmed its earlier decision that an arbitration provision was binding upon the Insurance Commissioner of Pennsylvania, acting as the liquidator of American Integrity Insurance Company, rejecting an argument based upon the McCarran-Ferguson Act. The Court declined to vacate the majority of the award under the manifest disregard of law standard, holding that “an erroneous interpretation by the arbitration panel does not warrant a finding of manifest disregard,” but vacated one paragraph of the award as being in manifest disregard of law, becuase it continued an insurance coverage past the time provided for by an unambiguous Pennsylvania statute.
District Court refuses to vacate arbitration award
In Hilb Rogal & Hobbs Co. v. Golub, Case No. 05-574 (USDC E.D. Va. Aug. 18, 2006), a non-insurance case, a District Court refused to vacate an arbitration award under the manifest disregard of law standard, holding that “[t]he mere fact that an arbitration panel reached a legal conclusion in error is not sufficient for vacatur.”