Jurisdiction Issues

“RIGHT TO KNOW” LAW INAPPLICABLE TO RECORDS SOUGHT IN INSURER’S LIQUIDATION PROCEEDINGS

April 10, 2012 by Carlton Fields

A court vacated an order of the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records that denied a request for documents in the possession of the department of insurance related to the drafting of the reinsurance offset guidelines of a liquidating insurer. The OOR had found that the documents were exempt from disclosure as “internal predecisional deliberations” in the possession of the department, which was serving as the insurer’s statutory liquidator. On appeal, while the court tended to agree with the OOR’s reasoning, it found that the state disclosure law was “inapplicable to rehabilitation or liquidation proceedings because [the records] are solely within the control of the court under the Insurance Act.” As a result, the court held that it, and not the OOR, had jurisdiction over the documents relating to the drafting of the guidelines. Greenberger v. Pennsylvania Insurance Department, Case No. 931 C.D. 2011 (Pa. Commw. Ct. March 7, 2012).

This post written by Michael Wolgin.

See our disclaimer.

ARBITRATION ROUND-UP

March 29, 2012 by Carlton Fields

Manifest disregard

Bangor Gas Co., LLC v. H.Q. Energy Services (U.S.), Inc., No. 1:11-cv-457-NT (USDC D. Me. Mar. 1, 2012) (granting motion to confirm, no manifest disregard).

Total Landscaping Care, LLC v. Tower Cleaning Systems, Inc., No. 10-6542 (USDC E.D. Pa. Mar. 1, 2012) (denying vacatur, no manifest disregard).

Duferco S.A. v. Tube City IMS, LLC, No. 11-886 (2d Cir. Mar. 8, 2012) (affirming denial of vacatur, no manifest disregard).

Exceeding Scope

W & J Harlan Farms, Inc. v. Cargill, Inc., No. 1:09-CV-113-WTL-TAB (USDC S.D. Ind. Mar. 6, 2012) (granting motion to confirm, arbitrators did not exceed scope, no manifest disregard).

Primed, Inc. v. Dallas General Life Insurance Co., No. 8:11-cv-2002-T-33AEP (USDC M.D. Fla. Feb. 28, 2012) (denying vacatur, arbitrators did not exceed powers).

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 10-17562 (9th Cir. Feb. 29, 2012) (affirming denial of vacatur, arbitrators did not exceed scope)

Failure to hear pertinent and material evidence

LJL 33rd Street Associates, LLC v. Pitcairn Properties, Inc., No. 11-Civ-6399 (USDC S.D.N.Y. Feb. 15 2012) (denying vacatur, no failure to hear pertinent and material evidence)

Jurisdiction / Venue / Procedure

JDS Uniphase Corp. v. Finisar Corp., No. 11-1213 (USDC W.D. Pa. Mar. 5, 2012) (granting motion to dismiss, no independent subject matter jurisdiction conferred by FAA) (appeal docketed March 9, 2012).

Marlowe v. IDS Property Casualty Insurance Co., No. 2011AP2067 (Wis. Ct. App. Mar. 13, 2012) (reversing trial court, remanding to arbitrators for ruling on discovery issues).

Rain CII Carbon, LLC v. ConocoPhillips Co., No. 11-30669 (5th Cir. Mar. 9, 2012) (affirming ruling denying vacatur for lack of “reasoned award” attack on award issued without findings of fact and law).

Grynberg Production Corp. v. Susman Godfrey, LLP, No. 10-1248 (10th Cir. Feb. 16, 2012) (affirming denial of motion to compel re-arbitration of matters encompassed by original award).

Bridgepoint Ventures, LLC v. PanAm Management Group, Inc., No. 11-10021 (11th Cir. Mar. 2, 2012) (affirming proper subject matter jurisdiction of trial court that granted motion to confirm where complete diversity existed at time of filing).

Local 36 Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association AFL-CIO v. Whitney, No. 11-1781 (8th Cir. Mar. 6, 2012) (reversing denial of vacatur where non-appearing party in arbitration challenged jurisdiction for lack of contract between parties for first time in proceeding to enforce the award).

This post written by John Pitblado.

See our disclaimer.

CROSS MOTIONS TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND APPOINT THIRD ARBITRATOR SPARK DISMISSAL OF TWO APPEALS

January 30, 2012 by Carlton Fields

Various BCBS healthcare plans and BCS Insurance Company became engaged in a coverage dispute pertaining to certain professional liability coverage issued by BCS to member plan administrators. As per applicable contracts containing arbitration provisions, the parties each named arbitrators. According to the contracts’ governing procedure, when those two arbitrators failed to reach agreement, some of the health plans brought an action in Illinois federal court seeking appointment of a neutral third arbitrator. In the course of that proceeding, BCS cross-moved for an order to compel individual arbitration, rather than class arbitration, which it styled as a motion to compel non-consolidated arbitration. The court ruled first on BCS’s cross-motion, finding that decision on that issue should be made by the arbitrator(s), not the court. BCS immediately appealed that decision. The court, finding BCS’s appeal an improper interlocutory appeal, thereafter appointed the neutral third arbitrator as requested by the plans and ordered the parties to continue the arbitration with the panel so constituted. BCS appealed that order as well, arguing that its previous interlocutory appeal deprived the district court of jurisdiction to enter its order. The Seventh Circuit held that the first appeal was an improper attempt to circumvent proper arbitration procedure under the FAA, and dismissed it as interlocutory. It then held that the dismissal of the first appeal mooted the basis for the second appeal, since the trial court had jurisdiction to enter its order appointing an arbitrator. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Inc. v. BCS Ins. Co., Nos. 11-2343 & 11-2757 (7th Cir. Dec. 16, 2011)

This post written by John Pitblado.

See our disclaimer.

REINSURANCE DISPUTE AGAINST UK REINSURERS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION

January 9, 2012 by Carlton Fields

An action for breach of contract and declaratory relief arising from “fronting” insurance arrangements and reinsurance contracts (some dating to the late 1960s) between Employers’ Liability Assurance Corp. (“ELAC,” a predecessor of OneBeacon) and a series of “Moving Party” reinsurers has fallen by the wayside. The moving party reinsurers filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, or alternatively, under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The court granted the motion, finding that the reinsurers – based in the UK – did not transact business in Massachusetts under the Commonwealth’s long-arm statute, nor did they have the requisite minimum contacts consistent with due process under the federal Constitution. The court found that a separate insurance broker and not the reinsurers had contacted ELAC regarding the contracts. The reinsurers were likewise not party to the contracts, and those agreements to which they were parties were negotiated and entered into in London. Further, no moving party reinsurer had any contact with any Massachusetts entity after 1993, thus failing the “continuous and systematic” contacts standard. OneBeacon America Insurance Co. v. Argonaut Insurance Co., No. 09-5085 (Mass. Super. Ct. Nov. 9, 2011).

This post written by John Black.

See our disclaimer.

NO APPELLATE JURISDICTION TO REVIEW DECISION VACATING ARBITRATION AWARD FOR EVIDENT PARTIALITY

December 1, 2011 by Carlton Fields

William Smythe invested funds with Morgan Keegan & Co, Inc. He brought a FINRA arbitration against Morgan Keegan alleging improper investments. Pursuant to FINRA rules, the parties named potential arbitrators, and Morgan Keegan objected to certain of them, two of whom were appointed to the panel over its objections. The panel found in favor of Smythe, and Morgan Keegan brought an action in Tennessee state court seeking to vacate the award based on the alleged “evident partiality” of two of the arbitrators. The trial court agreed with Morgan Keegan and vacated the award and remanded for a new FINRA arbitration. Smythe appealed. The appellate court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal, noting that while the Federal Arbitration Act specifically grants the right to appeal vacatur of an arbitration award, the comparable Tennessee arbitration statute allows for appellate review of vacatur only if unaccompanied by an order to remand for a new arbitration. Morgan Keegan & Co. v. Smythe, No. CH092353 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 14, 2011)

This post written by John Pitblado.