Jurisdiction Issues

FEDERAL COURT DECLINES TO ABSTAIN FROM DECIDING REINSURANCE DISPUTE NOTWITHSTANDING FIRST-FILED STATE CASE

September 20, 2010 by Carlton Fields

A federal district judge has agreed with a magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny a motion to abstain where an earlier-filed reinsurance coverage lawsuit was pending in Connecticut state court. In May 2009, the defendant filed suit in state court, contending there was no coverage under two reinsurance agreements for losses the plaintiffs incurred regarding asbestos-related claims. Five months later, the plaintiffs filed suit in federal court, seeking monetary relief for the defendant’s alleged breaches of contract, and for a declaration of the parties’ rights and obligations. The federal suit concerned the same two reinsurance contracts at issue in the state suit, but also involved claims under eleven additional contracts between the parties.

The defendant asked the federal court to defer to the first-filed state suit, which itself had been stayed on the state court’s finding that the federal suit would be the better vehicle to resolve the disputes. The magistrate judge recommended against abstention. The parties submitted briefing on the defendant’s objections to the recommendation, including objections, opposition to the objections and a reply in support of the objections. In adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendations, the district judge noted that, while the same parties and two of the same contracts were involved in the state suit, the claims were more comprehensive in the federal court because of the additional contracts at issue, and because the damages claims were absent from the state suit. Seaton Insurance Co. v. Clearwater Insurance Co., No. 09-516 S (USDC D. Conn. Sept. 2, 2010).

This post written by Brian Perryman.

FOLKSAMERICA GIVEN 60 DAYS TO PERFECT SERVICE AGAINST CONSTRUCTORA DEL LITORAL

August 24, 2010 by Carlton Fields

The US District Court for the Southern District of Florida recently issued an opinion on defendant Constructora del Litoral’s Motion to Dismiss for Insufficiency of Service of Process by plaintiff Folksamerica Reinsurance. The action arises out of defendants’ alleged failure to indemnify Folksamerica for sums paid in connection with reinsuring surety bonds issued for a construction project in Ecuador. Plaintiff served process pursuant to the Inter-American Convention on Letters Rogatory and Additional Protocol. Constructora alleged in its Motion to Dismiss that service was improper under both Ecuadorian law and under the Convention. The Court concluded that, although defendants had met the burden in establishing that service of process was insufficient, Folksamerica should be given 60 days to perfect service and file proof with the Court. Further background is available in the motion to dismiss, and the opposition to the motion to dismiss. Folksamerica Reinsurance Co. v. Constructora del Litoral, S.A., Case No. 10-20560 (S.D. Fla. June 18, 2010).

This post written by John Black.

LLOYD’S UNDERWRITERS MUST REVEAL “NAMES” TO ESTABLISH JURISDICTION

August 16, 2010 by Carlton Fields

Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London brought suit in Florida federal court to seek adjudication of the binding effect of a purported settlement agreement it had entered with insureds pertaining to coverage for an underlying all terrain vehicle accident. Lloyd’s and the insureds had been approaching a tentative agreement on a settlement, but the parties’ stories diverged from there, with Lloyd’s asserting settlement had been in fact been reached in principle, and the insureds asserting that no final agreement had been reached. Lloyd’s brought suit in federal court to resolve the dispute, and the trial court rejected the insureds’ challenge to jurisdiction, by way of motion to dismiss, asserting that Lloyd’s had to specifically allege the residence of each of the “names” actually sponsoring the insurance, and for whom liability attaches severally under pertinent British statutory laws governing Lloyd’s. The Eleventh Circuit Court reversed that decision, detailing the history of Lloyd’s, its nature as an unincorporated association of “names” who sign on to particular risks, which are administered by “syndicates,” and the manner in which liability attaches to the “names,” akin to the members of a partnership. The Court held that Lloyd’s must allege each of the actual “names” bringing suit for purposes of establishing diversity jurisdiction. Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London v. Osting-Schwinn, No. 08-15809 (11th Cir. August 5, 2010).

This post written by John Pitblado.

ANOTHER NAME AT LLOYDS’ MOUNTS AN UNSUCCESSFUL ENFORCEABILITY CHALLENGE TO A JUDGMENT AGAINST HIM

July 26, 2010 by Carlton Fields

The Second Circuit has affirmed the dismissal of another of a rash of lawsuits by Names at Lloyd’s challenging the enforceability of judgments obtained against them by Lloyd’s in the United Kingdom. The plaintiff Richard A. Tropp, a Name at Lloyd’s, brought a suit in federal district court to declare that a judgment obtained against him by Lloyd’s was unenforceable, as well as for an accounting from Lloyd’s. Tropp invested $160,000 of his retirement savings in the market but, due to its collapse, became liable to Lloyd’s on a $900,000 judgment entered by a UK court. Lloyd’s moved to dismiss for improper venue, since Tropp agreed in the “Choice Clause” of his contract with Lloyd’s to litigate all disputes in England, and for failure to state a claim. Tropp’s primary argument was that this forum selection clause is unenforceable because UK law deprived him of any remedy. The district court rejected this, because a “close reading” of the UK litigation revealed Tropp was not denied any remedy, but “simply was not victorious on the merits of his claims.” The UK courts provided due process. Tropp v. Corporation of Lloyd’s, Case No. 07 Civ. 414 (USDC S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2008).

In a summary order, the Second Circuit affirmed, principally reasoning that, although Tropp was unsuccessful in his attempts to assert defenses and counterclaims against Lloyd’s in the UK courts, “his experiences do not cause us to revisit our holding that the Lloyd’s forum selection clauses (of which this is one) are valid because UK remedies are available.” Tropp v. Corporation of Lloyd’s, No. 08-2332 (2d Cir. July 19, 2010).

This post written by Brian Perryman.

PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION DISMISSED FOR LACK OF FEDERAL COURT’S SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

July 1, 2010 by Carlton Fields

A limited liability corporation petitioned to confirm an arbitration award against an Illinois corporation in a California federal district court. The district court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as the parties were not diverse in their citizenship, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The LLC merely alleged it was incorporated in California and had its principal place of business there. These allegations were insufficient to establish the LLC’s citizenship, as an LLC must make allegations regarding the citizenship of each of its members and owners to properly allege its own citizenship. Kim-C1, LLC v. Valent Biosciences Corp., Case No. 1:10-cv-591 (USDC E.D. Cal. June 3, 2010).

This post written by Brian Perryman.