Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

You are here: Home / Archives for Arbitration / Court Decisions / Confirmation / Vacation of Arbitration Awards

Confirmation / Vacation of Arbitration Awards

REINSURANCE ARBITRATION AWARD STANDS IN FACE OF CHALLENGES TO RATIONALITY AND IMPARTIALITY OF DECISION

by

Yosemite Insurance Co. (“Yosemite”) lost its challenge to an arbitration award that found Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. (“Nationwide”) was not required to cover a share of Yosemite’s settlement with the State of California regarding pollution losses from the 1950s. After the arbitral board decided in Nationwide’s favor, Yosemite challenged the impartiality and rationality of the award.

In deciding Yosemite’s challenge, the court emphasized that the bases to vacate an arbitration award under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) are narrow and impose a steep burden on the challenging party. The dispute was based on whether an exclusion for “contamination and pollution” applied to any claims made or only where the party’s “main operations” related to “contamination and pollution.” The court found that while it believed the operative language was ambiguous, the arbitrators’ decision was “anchored” in the text of the agreement. Because the decision did not stray from an interpretation and application of the agreement, or exhibit a manifest disregard for the law, the court lacked authority under the FAA to second-guess the arbitral panel’s award.

Yosemite also challenged the arbitral panel’s impartiality because one of the three members failed to disclose that he had previously represented a client in a case adverse to Yosemite—a representation Yosemite’s counsel himself did not recall. The court applied a four-factor test borrowed from the Fourth Circuit to determine whether the inadvertent failure to disclose the representation would cause a reasonable person to conclude the arbitrator was biased. The court found there was no non-speculative suggestion of a conflict of interest, no suggestion of antipathy against Yosemite, and that the ten-year old adverse representation failed to impugn the impartiality of the arbitrator.

Despite rejecting Yosemite’s challenges, the court declined to award attorneys’ fees and costs to Nationwide because the claims were not objectively unreasonable. The court did however, “encourage” Yosemite’s counsel to review the strict and demanding showings required when seeking to vacate an arbitral award.

Yosemite Ins. Co. v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., Case No. 16-5290 (USDC S.D.N.Y. Nov. 10, 2016).

This post written by Thaddeus Ewald, a law clerk at Carlton Fields in Washington, DC .

See our disclaimer.

COURT GRANTS DEFAULT JUDGMENT CONFIRMING ARBITRATION AWARD, WITH A LESSON ON JURISDICTION

by

Choice Hotels filed an application to confirm an arbitration award of over $247,000 for the alleged breach of a franchise agreement by two defendants, which failed to timely commence construction of a hotel. The defendants had not participated in or submitted any written materials for arbitration. However, the court denied Choice Hotels’ first motion for a default judgment because it failed to adequately establish subject matter jurisdiction and jurisdiction under the FAA. The Court explained that the FAA is not an independent source of jurisdiction, and further held that Choice Hotels’ failed to plead the requirements of diversity jurisdiction. Additionally, because there was no record in the application or the arbitration award itself that the arbitration occurred in Maryland, which was required by the arbitration agreement, the court could not determine that jurisdiction existed under the FAA. Choice Hotels filed a second motion for default judgment, which successfully alleged diversity jurisdiction and established that the case was within the scope of the FAA. The Court then granted the motion for default judgment and confirmed the award. Choice Hotels Int’l, Inc. v. HSL Inv., Inc., Case No. TDC-15-2386 (USDC D. Md. Oct. 20, 2016).

This post written by Gail Jankowski, a law clerk at Carlton Fields in Washington, DC.

See our disclaimer.

SDNY CONFIRMS ARBITRATION AWARD FOLLOWING RESPONDENT’S DEFAULT

by

On an unopposed petition to confirm an arbitration award, a New York federal court treated the petition and accompanying record as a motion for summary judgment. “Thus, like unopposed summary judgment motions, unopposed confirmation petitions must fail where the undisputed facts fail to show that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”

As the parties’ were in diversity and the amount in controversy was met for jurisdiction, the Court, pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. § 9, reviewed the parties’ broad arbitration clause and, finding no grounds for vacatur or modification of the award, granted petitioner’s request.

McGroarty v. U.S. Rare Earths, Inc., 1:16-cv-02687 (USDC S.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 2016)

This post written by Nora A. Valenza-Frost.

See our disclaimer.

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMS DISTRICT COURT’S CONFIRMATION OF ARBITRATION AWARD, FINDING THAT ARBITRATOR’S REFUSAL TO POSTPONE HEARING DOES NOT WARRANT VACATUR UNDER THE FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT

by

The background of this case is as follows. CM South East Texas Houston LLC and South East Texas KCH Co. LLC (collectively, “CM South”) asserted breach of contract claims against CareMinders Home Care Inc. (“CareMinders”) and demanded arbitration. After months of initial proceedings, a five day hearing was scheduled for December 2014. A scheduling conflict arose and both sides requested new hearing dates, and the hearing was rescheduled for February 2015. Yet another conflict arose, and both sides requested a new date, and this time the hearing was rescheduled for March 9-13, 2015. One of CareMinders’ key witnesses then had a family emergency. CareMinders asked the arbitrator to reschedule the hearing for some time between May and September, 2015, advising that CM South agreed to the rescheduling. After conferring with the parties and discussing available dates, the arbitrator rescheduled the hearing to March 18-21, 2015, reducing it from five to four days. The hearing took place and CareMinders’ witness attended the hearing. The arbitrator then issued an award in favor of plaintiff CM South, awarding it damages. CM South filed a motion to confirm the award in Georgia federal court, and CareMinders filed a motion to vacate the award, contending that the arbitrator engaged in misconduct by refusing to postpone the hearing when both parties agreed to the rescheduling. The district court denied the motion to vacate, finding that CareMinders failed to show that the arbitrator’s refusal to postpone the hearing amounted to misconduct or that it prejudiced CareMinders’ ability to defend the case. The court also confirmed the arbitration award, which CareMinders appealed.

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the Georgia district court’s order confirming the arbitration award. In doing so, the Court held that an arbitrator’s refusal to postpone a hearing after it had been already rescheduled twice does not warrant vacatur of the award under the Federal Arbitration Act. The Court also noted that CareMinders’ witness attended and provided testimony at the hearing. As such, the Court further ruled that the parties were not prejudiced or deprived of a fair hearing and vacatur was not warranted.

CM South East Texas Houston v. CareMinders Home Care Inc., No. 16-11054 (11th Cir. Oct. 7, 2016).

This post written by Jeanne Kohler.
See our disclaimer.

COURT CONFIRMS AWARD, HOLDS ARBITRATOR DID NOT ERR IN DETERMINING VESTING STATUS OF FORMER EXECUTIVE’S SHARES

by

The case arose from an arbitration initiated under an employment agreement, after the chief operating officer of ACP Investment Group resigned. Addressing a provision in the agreement that required the COO’s forfeiture of only his unvested shares, the arbitrator determined that out of approximately 3 million shares that the COO had accrued, just over 2 million had vested. However, the arbitrator refused to value these shares or order their disposition because she believed that part of the dispute was outside the purview of the arbitration clause.

After the award, ACP sought clarification in a letter, asking the arbitrator whether the portions of the award addressing the vesting status of the COO’s shares were non-binding dicta, and arguing that the arbitrator’s determination was outside the jurisdiction of the American Arbitration Association. The arbitrator denied ACP’s request, reasoning that because the employment contract provided only for forfeiture of the COO’s unvested shares, she was acting within the scope of her authority by determining the vesting status of the shares.

ACP sought a temporary restraining order, which the court denied, and the COO moved to confirm the arbitration award. ACP argued that the arbitrator exceeded her scope, disregarded terms of the employment agreement, and that there were procedural irregularities during arbitration. The court dismissed ACP’s arguments, confirming the award, holding that the vesting determination was squarely within the scope of the arbitrator’s authority. The court also noted the great deference given by federal courts to arbitral panels, as well as the lack of any “abundantly clear” improper procedure at play. ACP Investment Group, LLC et al v. Blake, Case No. 15-CV-9364 (USDC S.D.N.Y. Oct. 13, 2016).

This post written by Gail Jankowski, a law clerk at Carlton Fields in Washington, DC.

See our disclaimer.