Jurisdiction Issues

TWO RECENT CASES ADDRESS REVERSE-PREEMPTION UNDER THE MCCARRAN-FERGUSON ACT

June 2, 2009 by Carlton Fields

On March 15, 2007, we reported on an Oklahoma district court’s denial of a motion to compel arbitration, finding that an Oklahoma statute prohibiting enforcement of arbitration clauses in insurance contracts controlled pursuant to the McCarran-Ferguson Act. Soon thereafter, the Oklahoma legislature amended the statute excepting reinsurance contracts from the prohibition. On appeal, despite the legislature not specifying whether the amendment would apply retroactively, the Tenth Circuit found that the statute itself was retroactive by its express terms and as interpreted by the Oklahoma Supreme Court, and, after acknowledging that arbitration agreements are contrary to Oklahoma public policy, the Tenth Circuit then found that specific legislative approval rendered the agreements valid and enforceable. Mid-Continent Cas. Co. v. Gen. Reins. Corp., No. 07-5050 (10th Cir. May 22, 2009).

Theodore L. Kessner (“Kessner”), appointed as the Special Deputy Liquidator of an insolvent insurer, filed an action in Nebraska state court seeking to recover on a reinsurance policy issued by One Beacon Insurance Company, which removed the action to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. Kessner then moved to remand, arguing that the McCarran-Ferguson Act reverse-preempted the federal removal statute. In the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge concluded that the matters at issue related to the business of insurance and that a proceeding in the district court would likely invalidate, impair or supersede the Nebraska insurer liquidation statutes utilized in the state liquidation proceeding, requiring remand. A short, two paragraph opinion by the District Judge adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, with a colorful conclusion that “intervention by a federal court could screw up the comprehensive scheme Nebraska has set up to deal with matters like this one. Federal law has a bias against such meddling.” Kessner v. One Beacon Ins. Co., Case No. 09-3003 (USDC D. Neb. Apr. 20, 2009).

This post written by Dan Crisp.

NINTH CIRCUIT FINDS THAT THE DISTRICT COURT LACKED JURISDICTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD AGAINST THE UNITED STATES

May 19, 2009 by Carlton Fields

In a proceeding in which the United States declined to participate, an arbitration panel awarded over $93 million to Park Place Associates, Ltd. (“Park Place”) on a breach of contract claim against the United States, which subsequently filed a motion to vacate in district court, which denied the motion to vacate and granted Park Place’s motion to confirm the award. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit first affirmed the denial of the motion to vacate, finding jurisdiction sufficient, since the United States had commenced civil proceedings in the district court by filing a complaint and a motion to vacate, and rejecting United States’ manifest disregard of the law arguments. Next, the court vacated the grant of the motion to confirm, concluding that, in this case where the action is to confirm a contract-based claim against the United States, the Tucker Act, which conditions its waiver on jurisdiction to the Court of Federal Claims, is the only means by which the United States can be said to have waived sovereign immunity, and, thus, the district court lacked jurisdiction to confirm the award. The court then remanded the case to the district court with instructions to dismiss the confirmation action as barred by sovereign immunity. United States v. Park Place Assocs., Ltd., No. 05-56235, No. 05-56312 (9th Cir. Apr. 22, 2009).

This post written by Dan Crisp.

RECENT DECISIONS FEATURE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES OVER NON-SIGNATORIES TO ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS

May 5, 2009 by Carlton Fields

UBS AG named Ramy and Michel Lakah (the “Lakahs”) as respondents in an arbitration proceeding, despite Michel never signing the arbitration agreement and Ramy only signing on behalf of Lakah Funding Ltd. and the guarantors, not in his personal capacity. The Lakahs petitioned the state court to stay the arbitration, and UBS removed the petition to federal court seeking to pierce the corporate veil. While the action was pending, the arbitration panel chairman informed all parties that the panel would address the question of jurisdiction over the Lakahs, and the Lakahs subsequently moved for a preliminary injunction. The court granted the petitioners’ motion for injunctive relief, stating that, unless the agreement clearly provides otherwise, courts decide the question of whether the parties agreed to arbitrate, and, without addressing the merits, the court found that petitioners would be irreparably harmed if the panel addressed the issue due to the cost of and time spent litigating before a body lacking the authority to decide this issue. Lakah v. UBS AG, Case No. 07-2799 (USDC S.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2009).

Symetra National Life Insurance Co. and Symetra Life Insurance Co., (collectively “Symetra”), obligors on structured settlement payments and nonparties to the transfer agreement that contained the arbitration clause, appealed from a trial court’s confirmation of an arbitration award that directed Symetra to pay Rapid Settlements, Ltd., instead of the original payee. In reversing the trial court’s judgment and vacating the arbitration award, the court held that the arbitration award violated public policy as set forth in the Texas Structured Settlement Protection Act (“TSSPA”) because no court had preapproved the transfer agreement. The court also held that Symetra had standing to contest the arbitration award because, first, the TSSPA gave Symetra an interest sufficient to contest any attempt to force the company to make payments, in the absence of court approval, to anyone other than the payee and, second, Symetra could be subject to double liability if payments were ever made to the wrong party. Symetra Nat’l Life Ins. Co. & Symetra Life Ins. Co. v. Rapid Settlements, Ltd., Case No. 14-07-00880 (Tex. App. Apr. 21, 2009).

This post written by Dan Crisp.

REINSURANCE GUARANTORS’ APPEAL DISMISSED FOR LACK OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION

April 28, 2009 by Carlton Fields

The Third Circuit has determined it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal of parties disputing their obligations in connection with certain reinsurance guarantees. In a breach of contract action, an insurer (Everest) alleged that certain guarantors failed to fulfill their obligations following the reinsurer’s (Founders) refusal to pay over $76 million to Everest under a reinsurance agreement. The guarantors filed counterclaims, in part seeking a declaration that no monies are due and owing under the guarantees because Everest unnecessarily reimbursed lenders for certain claims. In connection with a separate arbitration between Everest and Founders, an arbitral panel ordered Founders to post $70 million in favor of Everest as security. Founders failed to comply. Everest then moved for partial summary judgment in the lawsuit, seeking an order requiring the guarantors to satisfy Founders’s obligation to post security. Everest also moved to dismiss the counterclaims. The district court granted Everest’s motion for partial summary judgment and granted, in part, Everest’s motion to dismiss.

The appellate court found it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal on the one remaining counterclaim and on Everest's breach of contract claim, as there was no final order being appealed from, and because the district court’s award was merely one for the payment of money, and not an injunction (which would have accorded the guarantors the right to an interlocutory appeal). The appeal was dismissed. Everest Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Sutton, No. 08-4643 (3d Cir. Apr. 7, 2009).

This post written by Brian Perryman.

STATE INSURER LIQUIDATION ACT PREEMPTS FEDERAL REMOVAL STATUTE

March 24, 2009 by Carlton Fields

The Florida Department of Financial Services (“FDFS”) filed a claim in state court against General Reinsurance Corporation (“Gen Re”) after discovering that in the course of Aries Insurance Company’s (“Aries”) receivership, Aries made improper preferential transfers to Gen Re within six months of the rehabilitation date. Alleging diversity jurisdiction, Gen Re removed the action to Florida district court. FDFS moved to remand the claim to state court pursuant to the McCarran-Ferguson Act. The district court first determined that, under the Florida Insurers Rehabilitation and Liquidation Act (the “Liquidation Act”), the assets at issue are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Leon County Circuit Court. Granting the motion to remand, the district court stated that the federal removal statute does not specifically relate to the business of insurance, found that the Liquidation Act provision vesting exclusive jurisdiction in the state court served to regulate the business of insurance, cited similar findings by other courts regarding such jurisdictional provisions, and concluded that the McCarran-Ferguson Act applies causing the Liquidation Act to preempt the federal removal statute. Fla. Dep’t. of Fin. Servs. v. Gen. Reins. Corp., Case No. 08-443 (USDC N.D. Fla. Feb. 2, 2009).

This post written by Dan Crisp.