Confirmation / Vacation of Arbitration Awards

ARBITRATION ROUND-UP

March 29, 2012 by Carlton Fields

Manifest disregard

Bangor Gas Co., LLC v. H.Q. Energy Services (U.S.), Inc., No. 1:11-cv-457-NT (USDC D. Me. Mar. 1, 2012) (granting motion to confirm, no manifest disregard).

Total Landscaping Care, LLC v. Tower Cleaning Systems, Inc., No. 10-6542 (USDC E.D. Pa. Mar. 1, 2012) (denying vacatur, no manifest disregard).

Duferco S.A. v. Tube City IMS, LLC, No. 11-886 (2d Cir. Mar. 8, 2012) (affirming denial of vacatur, no manifest disregard).

Exceeding Scope

W & J Harlan Farms, Inc. v. Cargill, Inc., No. 1:09-CV-113-WTL-TAB (USDC S.D. Ind. Mar. 6, 2012) (granting motion to confirm, arbitrators did not exceed scope, no manifest disregard).

Primed, Inc. v. Dallas General Life Insurance Co., No. 8:11-cv-2002-T-33AEP (USDC M.D. Fla. Feb. 28, 2012) (denying vacatur, arbitrators did not exceed powers).

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 10-17562 (9th Cir. Feb. 29, 2012) (affirming denial of vacatur, arbitrators did not exceed scope)

Failure to hear pertinent and material evidence

LJL 33rd Street Associates, LLC v. Pitcairn Properties, Inc., No. 11-Civ-6399 (USDC S.D.N.Y. Feb. 15 2012) (denying vacatur, no failure to hear pertinent and material evidence)

Jurisdiction / Venue / Procedure

JDS Uniphase Corp. v. Finisar Corp., No. 11-1213 (USDC W.D. Pa. Mar. 5, 2012) (granting motion to dismiss, no independent subject matter jurisdiction conferred by FAA) (appeal docketed March 9, 2012).

Marlowe v. IDS Property Casualty Insurance Co., No. 2011AP2067 (Wis. Ct. App. Mar. 13, 2012) (reversing trial court, remanding to arbitrators for ruling on discovery issues).

Rain CII Carbon, LLC v. ConocoPhillips Co., No. 11-30669 (5th Cir. Mar. 9, 2012) (affirming ruling denying vacatur for lack of “reasoned award” attack on award issued without findings of fact and law).

Grynberg Production Corp. v. Susman Godfrey, LLP, No. 10-1248 (10th Cir. Feb. 16, 2012) (affirming denial of motion to compel re-arbitration of matters encompassed by original award).

Bridgepoint Ventures, LLC v. PanAm Management Group, Inc., No. 11-10021 (11th Cir. Mar. 2, 2012) (affirming proper subject matter jurisdiction of trial court that granted motion to confirm where complete diversity existed at time of filing).

Local 36 Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association AFL-CIO v. Whitney, No. 11-1781 (8th Cir. Mar. 6, 2012) (reversing denial of vacatur where non-appearing party in arbitration challenged jurisdiction for lack of contract between parties for first time in proceeding to enforce the award).

This post written by John Pitblado.

See our disclaimer.

COURT COMPELS PRODUCTION OF REINSURANCE TREATIES, BUT NOT RELATED COMMUNICATIONS

March 7, 2012 by Carlton Fields

In a discovery dispute involving requests for documents related to an insurer’s reinsurance treaties, a court compelled the production of the treaties, but reserved ruling on the production of related communications, subject to additional briefing on relevance. The court held that reinsurance policies themselves are discoverable without showing relevance. Communications regarding reinsurance, however, require a showing that the documents are relevant to alleged insurer bad faith. The assumption “that reinsurance decisions do not involve questions of policy interpretation is especially applicable when the reinsurance is treaty insurance.” Isilon Systems, Inc. v. Twin City Fire Insurance Co., Case No. 2:10-cv-01392 (USDC W.D. Wash. Feb. 15, 2012).

This post written by Michael Wolgin.

See our disclaimer.

MISSISSIPPI SUPREME COURT ISSUES “TRUE-UP” DECISION IN KATRINA LITIGATION

March 6, 2012 by Carlton Fields

As a result of Hurricane Katrina, the Mississippi Windstorm Underwriting Association sustained losses well in excess of its reinsurance. The Association assessed its members to cover the loss based on their percentages of wind and hail insurance premiums written in the previous calendar year. Several companies then complained that the Association had incorrectly reported the previous year’s figures and were given a one-time opportunity to submit correct data (a true-up). Some members, most of whom did not submit corrected data, appealed the assessment following the true-up. The Mississippi Supreme Court reviewed the lower court’s grant of relief to the members. The Court affirmed the lower court’s decision on two issues: finding that grouping was permitted and that reinsurance was allocated properly. The Court, however, reversed and remanded on the following issues: whether MWUA had authority to set and enforce a true-up deadline, the mandatory nature of voluntary credits and farm-property exclusions, whether assessments are akin to privilege taxes, and the mobile-home reporting issue. Further, because the lower court lacked authority to order the Association to adopt new rules, the Court reversed and rendered that part of the judgment below. Mississippi Windstorm Underwriting Assoc. v. Union Nat’l Fire Ins. Co., No 10-00076 (Miss. Jan. 26, 2012).

This post written by John Black.

See our disclaimer.

ARBITRATION AWARD UPDATE

February 29, 2012 by Carlton Fields

Contract Formation

Logan & Kanawha Coal Co., LLC v. Detherage Coal Sales, LLC, No. 2:11-cv-00342 (USDC S.D. W. Va. Jan. 20, 2012) (granting vacatur, alleged arbitration provision not incorporated into parties’ contract)

Exceeded Scope

Zenith Logistics, Inc. v. Teamsters Local Union No. 100, No. 1:11-cv-00301 (USDC S.D. Ohio Feb. 1, 2012) (vacatur denied, arbitrator did not exceed scope in construing contract)

Evident Partiality

NGC Network Asia, LLC v. PAC Pacific Group Int’l, Inc., No. 1:09-cv-08684 (USDC S.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2012) (vacatur denied, no evident partiality).

Public Policy

Titan Tire Corp. v. United Steel, No. 3:10-cv-50296 (USDC N.D. Ill. Dec. 22, 2011) (denying vacatur on de novo review of claim that arbitration award under CBA violated public policy)

Manifest Disregard

Fastware, LLC v. Gold Type Business Machines, No. 2:09-cv-01530 (USDC D.N.J. Jan. 5, 2012) (motion to vacate denied, no manifest disregard)

Agility Public Warehousing Co., K.S.C. v. Supreme Foodservice GmbH, No. 11 Civ. 7375 (USDC S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2011) (see also the court’s subsequent memorandum providing support for the December 19 Order) (confirming award, denying vacatur, no manifest disregard)

Hosier v. Citi Group Global Markets, Inc., No. 11-cv-00971 (USDC D. Colo. Dec. 21, 2011) (denying vacatur, arbitrators did not exceed authority, no manifest disregard)

Westminster Securities Corp. v. Petrocom Energy, Ltd., No. 1:10-cv-07893 (2d. Cir. Jan. 19, 2012) (affirming denial of vacatur, arbitrators did not exceed scope, no manifest disregard).

Priority One Services, Inc. v. W&T Travel Services, LLC, No. 10-1873 (USDC D.D.C. Aug. 23, 2011) (vacatur denied, arbitrators did not exceed scope, no manifest disregard), and subsequent order (Jan. 23, 2012) (awarding attorneys fees and costs to prevailing party due to frivolous vacatur argument)

Sawyer v. Horwitz & Assoc., Inc., No. 11-CV-1604 (USDC S.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2012) (denying vacatur, no manifest disregard, no failure to hear pertinent material evidence)

Procedure

Choice Hotels Int’l, Inc. v. RMC Realty, Ltd., No. 8:11-cv-02093 (USDC D. Md. Jan. 31, 2012) (granting motion for default in action seeking confirmation of award).

Pacific Employers Ins. Co. v. Global Reinsurance Corp. of Am., No. 1:11-cv-06301 (USDC S.D.N.Y. Dec. 12, 2011) (granting motion to confirm award, including declaratory relief)

Johnson v. Nat’l Railroad Passenger Corp. Amtrak, No. No. 11-13739 (11th Cir. Jan. 10, 2012) (affirming dismissal of vacatur action for failure to state a cognizable statutory ground for vacatur)

Big Lagoon Rancheria v. California, No. 4:09-cv-01471 (USDC N.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2012) (denying vacatur of JAMS mediator recommendations and orders)

This post written by John Pitblado.

See our disclaimer.

ARBITRATION AWARD IN FAVOR OF PROGRESSIVE AFFIRMED

February 23, 2012 by Carlton Fields

Recently, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the entry of an arbitration award against North Star Taxi. North Star and Progressive were parties to a voluntary arbitration agreement for all property damage and business-interruption-loss claims through intercompany arbitration before Arbitration Forums, Inc. After a dispute arose regarding an auto accident between one of Progressive’s insureds and one of North Star’s bailee-independent contractors, an arbitrator ruled that each of the two drivers were 50% responsible for the accident and reduced North Star’s undisputed damages by 50% based upon that negligence. North Star moved to vacate the award, and the Minnesota state district court ruled that North Star had waived its right to seek vacation of the award by entering into the arbitration award. North Star appealed (now also seeking attorneys’ fees), and the Court of Appeals concluded that under the Minnesota Uniform Arbitration Act, North Star had contractually waived its right to judicial review of the award. Accordingly, the award was confirmed and North Star’s motions were denied. North Star Taxi v. Progressive American Insurance Co., No. 11-757 (Minn. Ct. App. Jan. 30, 2012).

This post written by John Black.

See our disclaimer.