Jurisdiction Issues

UK HIGH COURT REFUSES TO STAY PROCEEDINGS DESPITE CONCURRENT ACTION IN TEXAS

July 31, 2013 by Carlton Fields

MacDermid Offshore Solutions LLC (“MacDermid”) sued Niche Products Limited (“Niche”) in Texas for misleading advertising. Soon thereafter, Niche sued MacDermid in the Patents County Court (“PCC”) in England under the British cause of action for malicious falsehood. Both intellectual property proceedings turned on whether a particular type of oil product was different. MacDermid filed an application with the PCC, requesting that the proceedings be heard in Texas. The PCC dismissed the application, and MacDermid appealed.

The High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the judge had applied the correct test in holding that the claim should be heard in the English jurisdiction, despite a concurrent action in Texas. The High Court noted that the test remains whether the foreign jurisdiction is clearly more appropriate. The existence of prior foreign proceedings is not decisive, though it may be a factor to be taken into account, and the weight to be attached to such proceedings is a matter of judgment. MacDermid Offshore Solutions LLC v. Niche Products Ltd, [2013] EWHC 1493 (Ch) (May 6, 2013).

This post written by Brian Perryman.

See our disclaimer.

MOTIONS TO DISMISS CAPTIVE REINSURANCE LAWSUIT DENIED

July 25, 2013 by Carlton Fields

A federal district court granted in part and denied in part various motions to dismiss filed by defendants HSBC and private insurers Genworth, Republic, and Mortgage Guaranty. Plaintiffs alleged that HSBC Mortgage, through HSBC Reinsurance, conspired with various private mortgage insurers to create a captive reinsurance scheme. The scheme, which involved private insurers paying HSBC reinsurance premiums for little, if any, assumption of risk allegedly circumvented the kickback prohibitions of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. Plaintiffs further alleged that the premium payments were made by the private insurers for business referrals. Though the RESPA allegations would otherwise be barred by the statute of limitations, the court declined to dismiss those claims, citing the doctrine of equitable tolling. The court also declined to dismiss plaintiffs’ additional claim for unjust enrichment. Only United Guaranty’s motion to dismiss was granted, as plaintiffs failed to show that United Guaranty actually insured the mortgages in question. Moriba BA v. HSBC USA, Inc., Case No. 2:13-cv-00072-PD (USDC E.D. Pa. June 27, 2013).

This post written by Brian Perryman.

See our disclaimer.

FEDERAL COURT REMANDS CITING SERVICE OF SUIT CLAUSE

May 15, 2013 by Carlton Fields

Plaintiff Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania (“INSCOP”) brought suit in New York state court against TIG, its reinsurer, alleging it breached six different facultative reinsurance agreements. TIG removed to federal court. INSCOP moved to remand, citing the service of suit clause which, though not quoted in the opinion, presumably authorized service of suit in New York. TIG argued that only some of the agreements contained the clause, but the court found there were no competing service of suit clauses for other jurisdictions, and that the absence of the clauses in some of the treaties did not overcome the presumption in favor of remand where the limits of federal court jurisdiction are at issue. Insurance Co. of the State of Pennsylvania v. TIG Insurance Co., No. 12-CV-6651 (USDC S.D.N.Y. March 11, 2013).

This post written by John Pitblado.

See our disclaimer.

TRUSTMARK NOT LIABLE FOR FAILING TO OBTAIN SETOFF IN LONG-RUNNING BATTLE OVER RETROCESSION AGREEMENTS

April 17, 2013 by Carlton Fields

A Connecticut federal court put to bed a case which started out as a petition to confirm an arbitration award between reinsurer and retrocessionaire, but “transmogrified over the years to become the antithesis of the speedy, inexpensive dispute resolution process that the Federal Arbitration Act (‘FAA’) intends.”

Trustmark and Arrowood were parties to certain retrocession agreements. Trustmark disputed its payment obligations and submitted the dispute to arbitration. After the arbitration panel found that Trustmark was not responsible for some $9.4 million of disputed payments, Trustmark petitioned the court to confirm the award. The court confirmed the award in 2003. Some three years later, Arrowood moved for contempt, alleging Trustmark had an obligation arising from the Court’s order to pursue set offs on Arrowood’s behalf, and that it failed to do so with regard to certain insolvent insurers. Ultimately, the Court kicked the issue back to the panel, which found that Trustmark may have an obligation to pay Arrowood the $9.4 million, if it was unsuccessful in pursuing payment from the insurers, but that the factual issues that would determine that issue were beyond the scope of the arbitration. Thus, the parties went back to court, and built an evidentiary record on the issue of whether Trustmark adequately fulfilled its duties to pursue setoff on Arrowood’s behalf. Accepting the factual record, but not the recommendations of the magistrate who handled the hearings, the Court denied Arrowood’s motions for enforcement and contempt. Arrowood Indmenity Co. v. Trustmark Insurance Co., No 3:03-cv-01000 (USDC D. Conn. Mar. 29, 2013).

DECLARATORY RELIEF ACTION REJECTED AS A MEANS TO CHALLENGE INTERLOCUTORY ARBITRATION ORDERS FOR LACK OF “RIPENESS”

February 25, 2013 by Carlton Fields

In an arbitration related to an uninsured motorist insurance claim, the insured twice challenged the arbitrators’ discovery rulings by filing declaratory relief actions in state court. The first time, the appellate court affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of the action for failure to first challenge the subject order with the arbitrators. The second time, after the appellant unsuccessfully challenged the orders with the arbitrators, the lower court dismissed the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction over interlocutory arbitration orders. On appeal, the appellate court affirmed the result, but disagreed with the lower court’s reasoning. The court held that a declaratory relief action is indeed a “justiciable” matter under state law, notwithstanding that the underlying issue involved interlocutory arbitration orders. The court ultimately concluded, however, that based on the legislative history of the Uniform Arbitration Act, the action still should have been dismissed for lack of ripeness. The court explained, “The meaning of [the legislative history] could not be clearer: if there is a dispute about an issue that is subject to the arbitration agreement, then the courts cannot review the arbitrator’s ruling on that issue until after the arbitration process is complete.” Klehr v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co., Case No. 1-12-1843 (Ill. Ct. App. Jan. 22, 2013).

This post written by Michael Wolgin.

See our disclaimer.