Jurisdiction Issues

Court Sua Sponte Orders Reinsurer to Submit Copies of Contracts to Prove Proper Forum

February 22, 2013 by Carlton Fields

An Illinois federal court sua sponte ordered R&Q Reinsurance Co., the plaintiff in a newly filed case, to provide copies of the contracts at issue, based on the complaint reflected that neither party resided in Illinois for jurisdictional purposes, although the complaint alleged that the contracts were negotiated and would be administered in Illinois. The Court ordered production of the contracts under the suspicion that they contained forum selection or choice-of-law clauses. R&Q Reinsurance Co. v. Sentry Insurance, No. 12 C 9788 (USDC N.D. Ill. Dec. 12, 2012).

This post written by John Pitblado.

See our disclaimer.

COURT DECLINES TO ORDER PREJUDGMENT SECURITY FROM A FOREIGN NATIONAL DOING REINSURANCE BUSINESS

February 20, 2013 by Carlton Fields

Pine Top Receivables LLC (“PTR”) was formed when a buyer purchased the assigned rights under certain reinsurance contracts from the Illinois liquidator handling the Pine Top Insurance Company receivership. PTR then brought suit against reinsurer Banco De Seguros Del Estados, which had entered into reinsurance contracts with Pine Top. PTR alleged that Banco owed more than $2,000,000 in overdue balances on the contracts. PTR’s suit sought to compel arbitration. Banco filed a motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds. PTR moved to strike the motion, on the grounds that Banco had not paid prejudgment security under Illinois’ statute requiring security by a nonresident reinsurer. Banco resisted the motion, asserting that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act prohibited the assessment of any “attachment” on a foreign governmental entity. The Court agreed with Banco, finding that it is a government instrumentality of the Republic of Uruguay, and that pre-judgment security under the statute was effectively an “attachment” as the term is used in the Act. Pine Top Receivables of Illinois, LLC v. Banco De Seguros Del Estados, No. 12 C 6357 (USDC N.D. Ill. Dec. 13, 2012).

This post written by John Pitblado.

See our disclaimer.

PARTICIPATION IN NEW YORK ARBITRATION NOT AN IMPLICIT WAIVER OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY UNDER THE FSIA

February 12, 2013 by Carlton Fields

A pro se attorney sued his former clients, Argentina’s economic ministry and a reinsurance company owned by the Argentine government, for malicious prosecution based on the Argentine government’s criminal prosecution of the attorney for allegedly exorbitant fees. In the malicious prosecution action, the Southern District of New York decided it could not exercise subject matter jurisdiction over the defendants because none of the exceptions to sovereign immunity provided by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act applied. Although the court acknowledged that defendants’ retention of the attorney in connection with commercial matters qualified as commercial activity, it determined that the commercial activity exception did not apply because the activity in question was the government initiated criminal prosecution. The court also concluded that defendants’ prior consent to arbitrate the issue of alleged overbilling by the plaintiff was not an “unmistakable or unambiguous waiver” of immunity from the separate tort action of malicious prosecution. Moreira v. Ministerio de Economia y Produccion de la Republica Argentina, Case No. 10 Civ. 266 (LTS)(KNF) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 7, 2012).

This post written by Abigail Kortz.

See our disclaimer.

STATE LAW REQUIRING “JURISDICTION OF ACTION” IN COURTS FOR INSURANCE DISPUTES RENDERED ARBITRATION CLAUSE VOID

January 28, 2013 by Carlton Fields

The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the denial of a motion to compel arbitration in an insurance dispute, based on a state statute that prohibits insurance contracts from “depriving the courts of [Washington] of the jurisdiction of action against the insurer.” The court analyzed the legislative history of the statute and state court precedent to find that the statute is more than a forum selection provision, but is a requirement for insurance disputes to be litigated in court. The court rejected the argument that a court’s ability to confirm an arbitration award constitutes “jurisdiction of action,” holding that a court’s power to confirm an award reflects only “limited” jurisdiction. The court further held that the state law regulated the “business of insurance” under the McCarran-Ferguson Act, so as to reverse preempt the FAA and preclude any application of Concepcion to this case. This result is similar to that in states which have a statute prohibiting arbitration provisions in certain insurance contracts. Washington Department of Transportation v. James River Insurance Co., Case No. 87644-4 (Wash. Jan. 17, 2013).

This post written by Michael Wolgin.

See our disclaimer.

TWO COURTS FIND LACK OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION TO HEAR ARBITRATION-RELATED APPEALS

January 18, 2013 by Carlton Fields

Two recent opinions illustrate the need to assess jurisdiction when proceeding in arbitration-related matters. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that it did not have appellate jurisdiction over an arbitration dispute involving a collective bargaining agreement for interstate truckers. Since appellate jurisdiction was predicted on a jurisdictional grant in the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §16(a)(1), and 9 U.S.C. §1 exempts from the FAA’s scope employment agreements involving interstate commerce, the court found, after a remand for fact finding, that it did not have jurisdiction under 9 U.S.C. §16 because the dispute involved truckers working in interstate commerce, and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local Union No. 50 v. Kienstra Precast LLC, No. 11-2097 (7th Cir. Dec. 13, 2012).

Of perhaps more interest to reinsurance practitioners, one party in a reinsurance arbitration filed an action in United States district court in Wisconsin seeking a declaration that the law firm representing the opposing party could not represent the opposing party in an arbitration pending in New York due to a conflict of interest. Jurisdiction was predicated on diversity of citizenship and amount in controversy. The court raised a question of subject matter jurisdiction on its own, and determined that the amount in controversy was not measured by the amount in dispute in the arbitration, but rather by the cost of replacing counsel, and that there was no good faith basis for believing that the cost of replacing counsel would satisfy the jurisdictional requirement of $75,000. The court therefore remanded the case to state court on its own motion. National Casualty Co. v. Utica Mutual Insurance Company, Case No. 12-657 (USDC WD Wis. Dec. 12, 2012).

This post written by Rollie Goss.

See our disclaimer.