Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

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

Contract Interpretation

SUPREME COURT HEARS ORAL ARGUMENT ON WHETHER PARTIES MAY SUPPLEMENT ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS BEYOND FAA’S VACATUR STANDARDS

by

The Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments on whether an arbitration agreement may provide for more expansive judicial review of an arbitration award than the narrow standard of review provided for in the Federal Arbitration Act. This case arose out of a property lease dispute between Mattel, the well-known toy manufacturer, and its landlord, Hall Street Associates. The parties agreed to arbitrate the dispute pursuant to the FAA procedures, but also agreed that a district court could overrule the arbitrator’s decision if the arbitrator’s “conclusions of law [we]re erroneous.”

The Ninth Circuit barred this type of court review, reasoning that private parties cannot expand the Congressionally-determined role of courts in reviewing arbitration awards. In contrast, the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Circuits appear to have interpreted the FAA’s vacatur standards as non-exclusive standards which parties may supplement by agreement. While the Seventh Circuit has not squarely addressed the issue, it stated in dicta that the parties “cannot contract for a judicial review” of a labor arbitration award “because federal jurisdiction cannot be created by contract.”

After hearing oral arguments on the issue, the Supreme Court asked for additional briefing on three issues: (1) whether authority exists outside the FAA under which a party to litigation begun without reliance on the FAA may enforce a provision for judicial review of an arbitration award; (2) if such authority does exist, did the parties, in agreeing to arbitrate, rely in whole or part on that authority; and (3) whether the petitioner waived any reliance on authority outside the FAA for enforcing the judicial review provision of the parties’ arbitration agreement.

Hall Street Associates, LLC v. Mattel, Inc., No. 06-989.

This post written by Lynn Hawkins.

CONNECTICUT SUPREME COURT VACATES SUMMARY JUDGMENT INTERPRETING REINSURANCE AGREEMENT

by

On September 24, 2007, we reported on a Connecticut Supreme Court decision addressing issues relating to a request for the posting of pre-pleading security in a case involving the interpretation of a reinsurance agreement covering losses on general liability insurance policies arising from claims for insuries resulting from the underlying insured's production and use of products containing asbestos. On remand, the principal issue on the merits of the dispute revolved around language in the reinsurance agreement relating to aggregation of losses and the definition of occurrence. The trial court granted summary judgment on that issue to the reinsurers. The Supreme Court has reversed, finding that there are disputed issues of material fact which preclude the determination of the interpretation issues in a summary judgment posture. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co. v. Ace American Reinsurance Co., SC 17625 (officially released Dec. 25, 2007).

This post written by Rollie Goss.

ILLINOIS COURT GRANTS SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO INSURANCE COMMISSIONER, AS STATUTORY LIQUIDATOR, ON RESCISSION AND SETOFF AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

by

We have reported previously on developments in Legion Insurance’s liquidation proceeding (see January 16, 2007 and April 26, 2007 posts), including an attempt to recover premiums allegedly owed by American Patriot Insurance Agency, Inc. (“American Patriot”) relating to a workers’ compensation program under a limited agency agreement.

On September 7, an Illinois federal court granted the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment on American Patriot’s affirmative defenses for setoff and rescission. The court concluded that American Patriot had waived their right to rescind the limited agency agreement where they failed to take any steps towards rescinding the agreement until three years after they acquired knowledge of the fraud, coupled with Defendants’ continued retention of the benefits of the contract. With respect to American Patriot’s setoff defense, the liquidator contended that the alleged debts could not be mutual because they were not due and owing between the same parties or based upon the same contracts, and that mutuality of capacity was lacking because the premium owed by American Patriot were held in a fiduciary capacity. The judge agreed, stating that “the debts asserted by Defendants lack a mutuality of time with the debts asserted against them by the Liquidator, and Defendants’ claim for setoff must be dismissed on these grounds.”

The court denied summary judgment to the liquidator on American Patriot’s remaining affirmative defenses of unclean hands, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, estoppel of a 2000 program year and breach of contract. Ario v. American Patriot Ins. Agency, Case No. 05 C 1049 (N.D.Ill. September 7, 2007).

COURT OF APPEALS REVERSES DISMISSAL OF REINSURANCE CONTRACT DISPUTE

by

AXA Corporate Solutions sued Lumbermens Mutual for indemnity under bonds and other reinsurance agreements. After the district court dismissed the claims asserted in both the Amended Complaint and the Second Amended Complaint, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed. The court of appeals found that dismisssal was inappropriate since the agreements were ambiguous as to whether they created a reinsurance obligation between the parties, and the scope of any reinsurance obligation. Such heavily fact dependent issues precluded dismissal. AXA Corporate Solutions Insurance Co. v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co., Case No. 06-2923 (2d Cir. July 11, 2007).

Court Finds Dispute As To Payment Of Claim Is Arbitrable

by

A reinsurance contract had what is termed a narrow arbitration provision, requiring arbitration only of disputes relating to the interpretation of the contracts. The service of suit clause provided for the resolution by a court of the failure to pay an amount claimed to be due. A dispute arose as to a claim submitted under the contract, specifically whether payment should be made to the insolvent claimant or its liquidator. A US District Court has determined that since the resolution of that question requires interpreting provisions of the reinsurance contract, the dispute is arbitrable. Railroad Insurance Underwriters v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, Case No. 07-3071 (USDC S.D.N.Y. June 4, 2007).