Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

You are here: Home / Archives for Arbitration / Court Decisions / Contract Formation

Contract Formation

Fifth Circuit Holds Parties Did Not Enter Into Arbitration Agreement Under the FAA

by

Estella Trammell was an at-will employee of AccentCare. She challenged the district court’s order requiring her to arbitrate a pay dispute with AccentCare. The district court held that there was an enforceable arbitration agreement under the mailbox rule. AccentCare mailed the arbitration agreement to Trammell’s home, but Trammell asserted that she did not receive or sign the arbitration agreement and therefore should not be bound to arbitration. Trammell asserted that she notified AccentCare that she was having difficulty receiving and sending mail at her address. She further asserted that she reported to AccentCare that she had not received timesheets mailed to her address, and she had also mailed timesheets to AccentCare and the company did not receive them. Further, AccentCare admitted that it could not produce a signed copy of the arbitration agreement. The court held that under the FAA the parties did not enter into an arbitration agreement. In Texas, the mailbox rule holds that a letter property addressed, stamped, and mailed may be presumed to have been received by the addressee in the due course of the mail. However, the court explained that Trammell overcame this presumption and created a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether an arbitration agreement was formed.

Trammell v. AccentCare, Inc., No. 18-50872 (5th Cir. June 7, 2019)

Ninth Circuit Affirms Order Denying Arbitration, Applying Precedent That State Law Does Not Overcome the New York Convention’s Signatory Requirement to Compel Arbitration

by

In a trademark dispute, Shrinivas Sugandhalaya LLP (SS LLP), an incense manufacturing company based in Mumbai, appealed the denial of its motion to compel arbitration against Balkrishna Setty and his company Shrinivas Sugandhalaya (BNG) LLP, located in Bangalore. SS LLP sought to compel arbitration under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (also known as the New York Convention), by invoking the arbitration clause in a partnership agreement to which SS LLP was not a signatory. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of arbitration, relying on the requirement under the New York Convention that the party seeking to compel arbitration be a party to the arbitration agreement. The court explained that to the extent the FAA would permit a nonsignatory to invoke arbitration through certain state contract or equitable laws, the Convention’s bar of arbitration would control over the FAA. The court also rejected other arguments of SS LLP, finding that they were not raised before the district court.

Setty v. Shrinivas Sugandhalaya LLP, No. 18-35573 (9th Cir. June 6, 2019).

Alabama District Court Enforces Arbitration Clause Related to Disability Policy Over Unconscionability Claim

by

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama has compelled arbitration despite a former employee’s claim that the arbitration clause in the policy at issue was unconscionable under the circumstances related to her disability claim.

Laura A. Thompson claimed to be disabled and sought benefits under a policy issued by Generali Worldwide Insurance Co. Limited. The policy was issued to the retirement plan trustee of a nongovernmental association. Thompson indirectly worked for the association as an employee of one of the association’s subsidiaries. Generali sought to compel arbitration. Thompson claimed the policy’s arbitration clause was unconscionable and therefore unenforceable. The basis of her claim was that she had no meaningful choice whether to accept or reject the clause and it would be cost prohibitive for her to travel to London to arbitrate her claim in accordance with the clause.

The court disagreed. First, it noted that Thompson was not a party to the policy; the policy was between Generali and the retirement plan trustee. Nothing suggested that the trustee was forced to accept the arbitration clause or that the trustee had unequal bargaining power. The court also noted that nothing prohibited Thompson from purchasing her own long-term disability policy. Second, Thompson’s claim that it would be prohibitively expensive for her to arbitrate her claim was disproven by her own complaint, which alleged that she was entitled to more than $1.3 million. Moreover, the arbitration rules allowed examination through telecommunication and the issue on the merits (whether Thompson was covered despite the fact that she was no longer employed by the covered employer) would not require much evidence.

As is the case in most jurisdictions, the standard for unconscionability under Alabama law is very high. The facts of this case did not meet that high standard. The court therefore granted Generali’s motion to compel arbitration with respect to Thompson’s dispute.

Thompson v. Generali Worldwide Ins. Co., No. 3:18-cv-011260 (N.D. Ala. June 7, 2019).

Second Circuit Vacates SDNY Order Enforcing Arbitration Award Against Reinsurer

by

In the latest iteration of a complex reinsurance dispute, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated a 2018 district court order enforcing an arbitration award against IRB Brasil Resseguros S.A. (IRB). We previously blogged about the district court order here. The arbitration award required IRB to indemnify National Indemnity Co. (NICO) against a claim by Companhia Siderurgica Nacional S.A. (CSN). NICO and CSN settled CSN’s claim in a settlement agreement to which IRB was not a party. The agreement provided that CSN would receive $5 million of the $9 million NICO owed, but that the funds would come from IRB through a lawsuit that NICO would commence against it, i.e., this action.

IRB appealed the 2018 district court order, arguing that the NICO/CSN settlement agreement could not have established its liability. The Second Circuit agreed. It held that IRB cannot be responsible for paying an amount determined by a contract to which it was not a signatory.

IRB next went a step further, arguing that the NICO/CSN settlement extinguished any obligation IRB had to indemnify NICO pursuant to the arbitration award. But the Second Circuit found IRB went too far in this regard. The court held that IRB is still potentially liable for the $5 million based on the arbitration award, which had already been confirmed in 2016, and affirmed in 2017. The court rejected IRB’s suggestion that a private contract between NICO and CSN could override obligations established by the arbitration award. The court strongly implied that a judgment determining NICO’s liability to CSN could trigger IRB’s indemnity obligations to NICO.

Nat’l Indem. Co. v. IRB Brasil Ressegurous S.A., No. 18-534-cv (2d Cir. Apr. 18, 2019)

California Federal Court Enforces Arbitration Provision in Uber Agreements

by

A class action alleging unsolicited text messages received from Uber violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and California competition law was sent to arbitration by a California federal court based upon an arbitration clause contained in the Technology Services Agreement (TSA) between certain of the class plaintiffs and Uber subsidiaries. Moreover, the court noted that the delegation clause in the agreement “clearly and unmistakably delegate the gateway question of arbitrability to the arbitrator, no matter what Plaintiffs’ purported subjective understanding of the terms of the agreement may have been.” The plaintiffs who had entered into the TSA were thus dismissed, and the action with the remaining plaintiffs will continue.

Fridman v. Uber Techs., Inc., 4:18-cv-02815 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2019)