Jurisdiction Issues

Fourth Circuit Dismisses Appeal Of Order Compelling Arbitration In Voluntarily Dismissed Class Action

April 17, 2018 by Michael Wolgin

This case arose from a putative class action alleging claims against Groupon on the basis of its reimbursement policies. After the trial court ordered the parties to arbitrate pursuant to an arbitration clause in the parties’ agreement, the plaintiff moved to amend the arbitration order, requesting that the district court dismiss her complaint with prejudice, advising the court that she would not pursue arbitration due to its costs outweighing her potential recovery. After the court dismissed the case, the plaintiff appealed the arbitration ruling, contending that the Fourth Circuit had jurisdiction over her appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, which gives appellate courts jurisdiction of appeals from “final decisions” of district courts.

The plaintiff’s appeal was stayed pending a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Microsoft Corp. v. Baker as to whether a voluntarily dismissed action is final for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Following the Supreme Court’s ruling that a voluntary dismissal does not qualify as a final decision, the Fourth Circuit followed the high court’s precedent and dismissed the appeal. Keena v. Groupon, Inc., Case No. 16-1973 (4th Cir. Mar. 27, 2018).

This post written by Gail Jankowski.

See our disclaimer.

California Federal Court Remands Fraud Claims in Workers’ Compensation Reinsurance Action To State Court

April 12, 2018 by John Pitblado

In a March 15, 2018 order, noting that only state law claims remained in the case, a California federal court remanded to state court a lawsuit against an insurance company and its affiliates, which alleged that they fraudulently marketed and sold a workers’ compensation program.

This case involves a matter that plaintiff BSA Framing Inc. (“BSA”) filed against defendants Applied Underwriters, Inc. (“AUW”), Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company, Inc. (“AUCRA”), California Insurance Company (“CIC”), and Applied Risk Services, Inc. (“ARS”) (collectively, the “Applied Defendants”). BSA entered into the Applied Defendants’ EquityComp workers’ compensation package, which consists of three consecutive one-year workers’ compensation policies issued by defendant CIC, an affiliate of AUW, and a “Reinsurance Participation Agreement” with defendant AUCRA (the “RPA”). According to the complaint, over the course of its three-year participation in the EquityComp program, BSA paid the Applied Defendants a total of $2,133,345 in premiums and defendants paid $352,623 in BSA-related workers’ compensation claims pursuant to the terms of the workers compensation policies and the RPA. BSA also alleges that defendants made misrepresentations or omissions that led it to believe that its participation in the EquityComp program would be more financially favorable to BSA than it was. Specifically, BSA alleges that it expected to pay “at least $868,583” less than it actually paid in premiums over the course of its participation in the EquityComp program. BSA also alleges that the RPA was “purposefully written to be as vague as possible and to obfuscate and hide the manner in which an insured’s payment obligations are to be determined.”

BSA first filed its suit against the Applied Defendants in California state court, asserting several California state law claims and federal RICO claims. The Applied Defendants removed the case, invoking the district court’s federal-question jurisdiction on the basis of BSA’s RICO claims. In a November 28, 2017 order, the California district court granted the Applied Defendants’ motion to dismiss the RICO claims, but allowed BSA to file an amended complaint. BSA then filed an amended complaint, in which it again asserted RICO claims against the Applied Defendants, which again moved to dismiss the RICO claims. On February 27, 2018, the California district court granted the Applied Defendants’ motion without leave to amend and also ordered the Applied Defendants to show cause why the action, which now involves only state claims, should not be remanded to state court. The Applied Defendants did not file a response, and thus, the California district court remanded the case to state court.

BSA Framing, Inc. v. Applied Underwriters, Inc. et al., No. CV-17-1836 (USDC C.D. Cal. Feb. 27 and Mar. 15, 2018)

This post written by Jeanne Kohler.
See our disclaimer.

ON RECONSIDERATION, APPLIED UNDERWRITERS AGAIN LOSES ARGUMENT TO ENFORCE MANDATORY FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE IN REINSURANCE CONTRACT

April 4, 2018 by Rob DiUbaldo

As we previously reported, the District of Connecticut in September denied a motion to transfer based on a mandatory forum selection clause in a reinsurance contract in a dispute between Applied Underwriters, Inc. and its affiliates, and Aiello Home Services (“Aiello”), over a workers’ compensation insurance product. There, the court held the forum selection clause did not bind Aiello relative to defendants other than Applied affiliate Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company (“AUCRAC”), did not apply to Aiello’s specific claims against AUCRAC, and was generally unenforceable under Nebraska and federal law. In the present opinion, the court granted a motion for reconsideration to clarify its prior ruling, but denied the requested relief.

The court addressed whether the claims and parties are subject to the forum selection clause and whether the resisting party showed that the enforcement of the clause would be unjust or the clause was otherwise invalid.

On reconsideration, AUCRAC first argued that the claims, while not “arising out of” the contract, are “related to” the reinsurance contract. Noting that the Second Circuit interprets the language “related to” broadly, the court reaffirmed its original ruling the claims fall outside the scope of the forum selection clause. Aiello’s statutory claims concern deceptive behavior that predated the reinsurance contract and the court was unable to determine the extent to which the alleged misrepresentations induced the parties to agree to the contract, concluding that those claims were not “related to” the contract.

Despite not needing to reach the enforceability of the forum selection clause because the court held Aiello’s claims did not “relate to” the reinsurance contract, the court analyzed the clause’s enforceability to clarify statements from its September ruling. Because Second Circuit precedent for evaluating enforceability provides that federal law controls, the court clarified that although it found the forum selection clause is unenforceable under Nebraska law, it did not ground the decision on the motion to transfer on state law. The court then doubled-down on its assessment that the forum selection clause was unenforceable under federal law because of the accompanying inefficiencies and risk of inconsistent judgments. However, it specified that it was not suggesting inefficiency alone renders the clause unenforceable, but rather in the circumstances here the inefficiency constituted sufficient injustice.

Charter Oak Oil Co. v. Aiello Home Servs., Case No. 17-689 (D. Conn. Feb. 26, 2018).

This post written by Thaddeus Ewald .

See our disclaimer.

NEBRASKA FEDERAL COURT APPLIES FIRST-TO-FILE RULE TO REINSURANCE BREACH OF CONTRACT DISPUTES, TRANSFERS CASE TO CONNECTICUT

March 14, 2018 by Rob DiUbaldo

The District of Nebraska recently ruled in favor of Charter Oak Oil Co. (“Charter Oak”)’s attempt to dismiss a breach of contract case by Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Co. (“AUCRA”) based on the first-to-file rule. AUCRA administered the investment component of a reinsurance participation plan with Charter Oak. Charter Oak moved to dismiss for improper venue based on concurrent litigation by Charter Oak against AUCRA in Connecticut federal court. AUCRA opposed the motion to dismiss, arguing that “compelling circumstances” and “red flags” existed sufficient to warrant an abrogation of the first-to-file rule. Specifically, AUCRA alleged it warned Charter Oak via a demand letter of its intent to file this lawsuit in Nebraska and Charter Oak raced to the Connecticut courthouse first. AUCRA further alleged that it was attempting to settle the dispute out of court by notifying Charter Oak of its intent to file suit.

The court, however, brushed off those arguments and held that “even assuming them to be true” the first-to-file rule still applied. It noted there was no evidence that Charter Oak knew the Nebraska lawsuit was imminent, that Charter Oak misled AUCRA to gain the advantages of filing first, or that Charter Oak made any prior assurances it would not file a complaint but then did anyway. Additionally, the court rejected AUCRA’s argument that jurisdiction did not attach in Connecticut because that court was still considering AUCRA’s motion to enforce a Nebraska forum-selection clause at the time this lawsuit was filed because the Connecticut court had since denied that motion. Finally, the court noted that while the Connecticut litigation included different allegations, the two complaints “substantially overlap” which strengthened the case for applying the first-to-file rule.

Procedurally, the court denied the dismissal of AUCRA’s breach of contract claim and asked AUCRA to decide whether it wished to dismiss the complaint without prejudice or transfer it to Connecticut. On January 16, 2018, the Court granted AUCRA’s request and transferred the case to Connecticut.

Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Co. v. Charter Oak Oil Co., Case No. 17-164 (D. Neb. Jan. 4, 2018).

This post written by Thaddeus Ewald .
See our disclaimer.

U.K. COURT FINDS ARBITRATION RESPONDENT DID NOT WAIVE OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION OF ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL

March 1, 2018 by John Pitblado

The Queen’s Bench Division of the U.K.’s High Court of Justice has reversed a partial award by a tribunal of the London Court of International Arbitration (“LCIA”), which held that an arbitration respondent lost its right to challenge the validity of a request for arbitration by failing to object until after serving its Response and shortly before its Statement of Defence was due. The court agreed with the tribunal that the request for arbitration violated LCIA Rules by seeking to join two disputes arising under separate contracts in a single proceeding. The court disagreed, however, with the conclusion that the respondent untimely challenged the tribunal’s jurisdiction based on the invalid request. Reading Section 31 of the 1996 Arbitration Act together with Article 23.3 of the LCIA Rules, the court found that objections to jurisdiction must be made no later than the time for the Statement of Defence.

A v. B, [2017] EWHC 3417 (Comm)

This post written by Alex Silverman.

See our disclaimer.