Jurisdiction Issues

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.

COURT DISMISSES CASE AGAINST FOREIGN REINSURER FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION

May 24, 2011 by Carlton Fields

Pacific Employers Insurance Company entered into a quota share reinsurance agreement with AXA Belgium in the 1970s, when Pacific was a California domiciliary. The agreement was never formalized so it included no terms concerning exclusive jurisdiction, service of suit, choice of law or forum selection. Pacific moved its offices to Pennsylvania in the early 1990s. Pacific continued to bill AXA on occasion, and AXA paid claims and submitted billings to Pacific at its Pennsylvania office. The parties then became engaged in dispute over AXA’s continuing obligations. Pacific brought suit in Pennsylvania federal court. AXA challenged personal jurisdiction. Pacific produced evidence in support of its claim of jurisdiction, including billings AXA sent to it in Pennsylvania, and the fact that AXA representatives had conducted an audit of Pacific at its Pennsylvania offices. It also contended that AXA directed numerous written and telephone communications to Pacific in Pennsylvania. Finally, Pacific argued that AXA did other substantial business in Pennsylvania, in support of its “general jurisdiction” claim. The Court rejected all of Pacific’s claims, and granted AXA’s Rule 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss. Pacific Employers Ins. Co. v. AXA Belgium, S.A., No. 09-5211 (USDC E.D. Pa. April 27, 2011).

This post written by John Pitblado.

MOTION TO TRANSFER REINSURANCE MATTER TO DISTRICT HEARING RELATED CASES INVOLVING DIFFERENT REINSURERS DENIED

May 18, 2011 by Carlton Fields

Plaintiff White Mountains Re, successor in interest to MONY Re, filed an action in the New York Supreme Court against Travelers asserting claims for declaratory judgment and breach of contract arising out of a dispute concerning certain reinsurance contracts. Travelers removed the action to the US District Court for the Southern District of New York and subsequently filed a motion to transfer this action to the District of Connecticut. There are a number of related cases concerning the reinsurance contracts pending in the US District Court for the District of Connecticut, although White Mountains Re is not a party in any of the Connecticut actions. The District Court denied Travelers’ motion, concluding that although the action could have been filed in the District of Connecticut originally, White Mountain Re’s choice of forum is “given great weight.” Further, the Court concluded that while the current action is related to those in the District of Connecticut, White Mountain Re’s suit was not filed in response to a direct threat of litigation in the other forum. Accordingly, Travelers failed to show that transfer was appropriate. White Mountains Reinsurance Co. of Am. v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Co., Case No. 11-390 (S.D. N.Y. Apr. 13, 2011).

This post written by John Black.