Jurisdiction Issues

SERVICE OF SUIT ENDORSEMENT DEEMED TO WAIVE INSURER’S RIGHT TO REMOVE ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT

March 18, 2014 by Carlton Fields

A Missouri federal district court remanded a coverage action brought against Illinois Union Insurance Company (“Illinois Union”) by its insured, holding that the Policy’s Service of Suit Endorsement (“Endorsement”) waived Illinois Union’s right to remove the action to federal court notwithstanding the Policy’s Jurisdiction and Venue clause which stated that the Insurer did not waive its right of removal. The Endorsement provided that, at the insured’s request, Illinois Mutual will submit to the jurisdiction of any court of competent jurisdiction. The Endorsement also included the conspicuous statement “This Endorsement Changes the Policy, Please Read it Carefully.” Characterizing it as “meritless”, the Court rejected Illinois Union’s argument that the Endorsement did not waive Illinois Union’s right of removal because the Endorsement did not explicitly state that it substituted the Jurisdiction and Venue clause. Instead, citing principles of contract interpretation, the Court found that if the terms of the endorsement and the general provisions of the policy conflict, the terms of the endorsement prevail. The Endorsement in this case supplanted the Jurisdiction and Venue clause found in the general provisions of the policy and, therefore, waived Illinois Union’s right to remove the case to federal court. Both of these clauses are commonly found in reinsurance agreements, and this opinion illustrates that careful drafting is necessary to achieve the desired business result. Hazelwood Logistics Center, Inc. v. Illinois Union Insurance Company, No. 4:13-CV-2572 CAS (USDC E.D. Mo. Feb. 28, 2014).

This post written by Leonor Lagomasino.

See our disclaimer.

COURT STANDS BY DECISION DENYING DISMISSAL OF CASE INVOLVING REINSURANCE OF PERFORMANCE BOND

February 27, 2014 by Carlton Fields

A New York federal district court denied reconsideration of its refusal to dismiss a case for forum non conveniens or lack of personal jurisdiction, in a dispute involving reinsurance of a performance bond insuring the payment of fees for the right to administer Argentina’s postal services. The court was unpersuaded by the fact that the insured’s principal place of business and operations were located in Argentina, given that the reinsurer conducted relevant reinsurance business through its New York office. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. Aseguradora de Creditos y Granatias, Case No. 1:12-cv-04627 (USDC S.D.N.Y. February 6, 2014).

This post written by Michael Wolgin.

See our disclaimer.

REINSURANCE DISCOVERY DISPUTE TRANSFERRED

February 25, 2014 by Carlton Fields

The FDIC receiver of a bank served subpoenas on reinsurers, seeking information as to how the cedent insurer interpreted certain ambiguous terms in the underlying liability insurance policy. The insurer and reinsurer objected to the subpoenas, and the receiver filed an action in the reinsurer’s district to compel responses. Rather than ruling on the objections, the court elected to transfer the matter to the court in which the underlying litigation was pending. The transferor court relied on considerations of judicial efficiency and comity, explaining that it was not in a position to resolve arguments over the transferee court’s intentions with respect to the scope of permitted discovery, and that differences in the districts’ respective case law on the relevance of reinsurance information presented a risk of conflicting discovery rulings. The court also noted that recent revisions to the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure governing subpoenas further supported transfer of the action. FDIC v. Everest Reinsurance Holdings, Inc., Case No. 1:13-mc-00381 (USDC S.D.N.Y. January 23, 2014).

This post written by Michael Wolgin.

See our disclaimer.

NONAPPEALABILIY CLAUSES IN ARBITRATION AGREEMENT HELD NOT ENFORCEABLE IN THE NINTH CIRCUIT

December 25, 2013 by Carlton Fields

Faced with a question of first impression, the Ninth Circuit recently held that a clause in an arbitration agreement that eliminates any and all federal court review of arbitration awards, including review under § 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act, is unenforeceable. The Court reasoned that allowing parties to “contractually eliminate all judicial review of arbitration awards . . . run[s] counter to the text of the FAA,” and “would also frustrate Congress’s attempt to ensure a minimum level of due process for parties to an arbitration.” In re Wal-Mart Wage and Hour Employment Practices Litigation, No. 11-17718 (9th Cir. Dec. 17, 2013).

This post written by Abigail Kortz.

See our disclaimer.

BRITISH COURT REFUSES TO ENJOIN U.S. REINSURANCE LAWSUIT, OR STAY BRITISH SUIT, BETWEEN SAME PARTIES REGARDING SAME ISSUES.

December 16, 2013 by Carlton Fields

The claimant, the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, sued Equitas under certain reinsurance contracts that provided cover of $15 million, excess of $5 million in underlying insurance for ICP-issued policies covering the Dole Food Co. Dole faced more than $30 million in liabilities arising from alleged personal injuries caused by its use of certain pesticides in its fruit farming operations. Equitas claimed that ICP failed to timely notify Equitas of the claims, barring coverage under the reinsurance contracts. ICP brought suit first in New York, and Equitas filed its own later action in London, arguing that venue in the U.S. was improper, and seeking to enjoin the U.S. action. The English court declined to enjoin the U.S. action. However, it also denied ICP’s motion to stay the English proceeding, leaving the litigation proceeding on parallel tracks in New York and London. Insurance Co. of Pa. v. Equitas, [2013] EWHC 3713 (U.K. High Court of Justice, Comm. Div. Nov. 29, 2013)

This post written by John Pitblado.

See our disclaimer.