Contract Interpretation

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently refused to invalidate an arbitration award in a breach of contract case involving patent royalties based on purported violations of public policy.

Dr. John Insall patented various knee replacement devices and licensed them to medical device company Zimmer Biomet Holdings Inc. Zimmer paid Dr. Insall, and later his estate, royalties in return. Dr. Insall’s last patent expired in 2018, and Zimmer informed his estate it would be ceasing royalty payments because it believed further payments ran “counter to the policy and purpose of patent laws.” The estate claimed that was improper and the parties arbitrated the matter. An arbitration panel concluded that the payments could continue and thus ruled for the estate. Zimmer moved to vacate the award on public policy grounds. The district court confirmed the award.

The Seventh Circuit affirmed. It noted that even if Zimmer’s arguments that there is a “well-defined public policy that a party may not be compensated for patent rights after the patent’s expiration,” the arbitration award still needed to be confirmed because “the panel determined that the royalty payments in question were not grounded in any patent rights” but were instead “untied” to Dr. Insall’s “patents, products, or technology.” Put differently, the panel interpreted the contract as providing for payments for “non-patent rights” that were “closely related” to patents. The court noted that the Federal Arbitration Act does not allow it to question whether the arbitrators erred or even clearly erred in interpreting a contract, but to only determine whether it interpreted the contract.

Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. v. Insall, No. 23-1888 (7th Cir. July 12, 2024).

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois has rejected an argument that opting out of arbitration clauses precluded arbitration under prior arbitration agreements in a dispute between Uber drivers and Uber.

A group of Illinois Uber drivers sued Uber under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Illinois law claiming that Uber misclassified them as independent contractors. Uber moved to compel arbitration, arguing that the drivers had signed multiple platform access agreements that included broad arbitration clauses. The platform access agreements allowed drivers to opt out of the arbitration clauses if they so chose, however. The drivers had not opted out of one or more of the agreements but, when subsequent platform access agreements were presented to them, had opted out of those. They argued that the subsequent opt-outs precluded Uber from enforcing the earlier agreements to arbitrate. The district court disagreed, citing the plain language of the opt-out provision, which provided: “If you opt out of this Arbitration Provision and at the time of your receipt of this Agreement you were bound by an existing agreement to arbitrate disputes arising out of or related to your use of our Platform and Driver App, that existing arbitration agreement will remain in full force and effect.” The court also concluded that the arbitration clauses were not unconscionable under Illinois law. One of the plaintiffs had previously filed suit and obtained a ruling that he was not required to arbitrate any claims, however. The district court gave effect to that decision under issue preclusion principles.

Agha v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-17182 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 22, 2024).

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently reversed a district court’s decision to deny a motion to compel arbitration in a case involving a request to refund the cost of airline tickets after a cancellation.

Winifredo and Macaria Herrera purchased airline tickets on Cathay Pacific flights through a third-party booking website, ASAP Tickets. ASAP’s terms and conditions included an arbitration clause requiring binding arbitration through the American Arbitration Association. During their trip, Cathay Pacific canceled the Herreras’ return flight and told them to talk to ASAP about a refund. ASAP apparently denied the Herreras’ request for a refund. The Herreras filed suit against Cathay Pacific, which moved to compel arbitration pursuant to ASAP’s terms and conditions. The district court denied Cathay Pacific’s motion, reasoning that the Herreras’ gripe was with Cathay Pacific, not ASAP.

Cathay Pacific appealed, and the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded. It first rejected the argument that federal regulations precluding arbitration provisions in “contracts of carriage” precluded arbitration in this case, explaining that the regulation in question did not prohibit “airline carriers from enforcing arbitration agreements between passengers and third parties if the applicable law permits them to do so.” The court then held that California contract law allowed Cathay Pacific to invoke ASAP’s arbitration clause because the Herreras’ breach of contract claim was “intimately founded in and intertwined with” ASAP’s terms and conditions. ASAP had effectively acted as a “middleman” for “refund-processing purposes.” The Ninth Circuit then rejected the Herreras’ arguments that it would be unfair to allow Cathay Pacific to invoke the arbitration clause because “the refund process was not clear.”

Herrera v. Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd., No. 21-16083 (9th Cir. Mar. 11, 2024).

In Housing & Redevelopment Insurance Exchange v. Guy Carpenter & Co., a Pennsylvania federal court considered the enforceability of a forum selection clause in a services agreement between Pennsylvania-based insurer Housing and Redevelopment Insurance Exchange (HARIE) and its reinsurance broker Guy Carpenter. In that case, the parties entered into an agreement establishing Guy Carpenter as HARIE’s reinsurance broker of record for a three-year period. The agreement included choice-of-law and forum selection clauses applying New York law and a New York forum “for the resolution of any disputes raising issues regarding the construction, meaning or enforcement of the terms of this agreement.”

HARIE did not renew the contract after that period, notifying Guy Carpenter that it would not serve as its broker of record for new reinsurance agreements. Guy Carpenter deducted $101,646.20 from a fiduciary account it held on behalf of HARIE, arguing it was entitled to that money under the terms of the agreement in the event of nonrenewal. HARIE then sued in Pennsylvania federal court to recover those funds. In the litigation, Guy Carpenter moved to dismiss or, in the alternative, to transfer, arguing (among other things) that the forum selection clause mandated that New York, not Pennsylvania, was the proper forum for the dispute.

The court’s decision focused primarily on the applicability and enforceability of the New York forum selection clause in the services agreement. In this regard, the court conducted a two-part analysis. First, the court considered whether the forum selection clause was valid and enforceable. The court agreed with Guy Carpenter and found that, while the terms of other contracts between the parties were also in issue, resolution of HARIE’s claims would require the court to construe the meaning or enforceability of the terms of the services agreement itself, such that the agreement’s New York forum selection clause governed the dispute.

Second, the court considered whether, even though the forum selection clause applied, public interest factors nonetheless militated against its enforcement in this case. In support of applying the forum selection clause, Guy Carpenter pointed out that the events of this case primarily took place in New York and that Guy Carpenter was based there. Guy Carpenter further pointed out that New York law governed the services agreement at issue. Discounting HARIE’s arguments that HARIE exclusively insures Pennsylvania insureds and that New York federal courts were slightly more congested than those in Pennsylvania, the court concluded that public interest factors weighed in favor of enforcing the New York forum selection clause.

Having found the forum selection clause valid and enforceable, and that public interest factors weighed in favor of its enforcement in this case, the court granted Guy Carpenter’s motion to the extent it sought transfer of the case to federal court in the Southern District of New York.

Housing & Redevelopment Insurance Exchange v. Guy Carpenter & Co., No. 3:23-cv-00996 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 25, 2024).