Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

You are here: Home / Archives for Arbitration / Court Decisions / Jurisdiction Issues

Jurisdiction Issues

MCCARRAN-FERGUSON ACT DOES NOT PERMIT STATE LAW TO INVALIDATE CONTRACTUAL PROVISION FOR ARBITRATION UNDER INTERNATIONAL TREATY

by

Plaintiff Louisiana Safety Association of Timbermen – Self Insurers (“LSAT”) filed an action in federal district court in Louisiana seeking to enforce the assignment of a reinsurance contract entered into between its predecessor in interest, Safety National Casualty Corporation (“SNCC”), and SNCC’s reinsurer, Certain Underwriters at Llloyd’s, London (“Lloyd’s”). Lloyd’s refused to recognize the attempted assignment by SNCC to LSAT of SNCC’s rights under the reinsurance contract on the ground that the reinsurance pertained to underlying personal injury claims under workers compensation insurance, and thus were non-assignable rights.

Lloyd’s sought, in response to LSAT’s suit, an order referring the matter to arbitration, as required under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (“Convention”). The Convention, an international treaty, requires that courts of signatory states “shall, at the request of one of the parties, refer the parties to arbitration. . .” LSAT contended that a Louisiana statute barring mandatory arbitration provisions in insurance contracts reverse-preempted the Convention, under the McCarran-Ferguson Act. The district court granted summary judgment to LSAT, finding that the Louisiana statute supersedes the Convention. Lloyd’s appealed. The Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that while McCarran-Ferguson reverse-preempted “Acts of Congress,” that term did not encompass international treaties, which controlled in the face of contrary state law. Safety Nat’l. Cas. Corp. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, et al., No. 06-30262 (5th Cir. Sept. 29, 2008).

This post written by John Pitblado.

ILLINOIS APPELLATE COURT AFFIRMS STAY OF STATE COURT DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION PENDING INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION

by

Boeing insured satellites it manufactured partly through a Bermuda captive, which reinsured 100% of the risks, partly through Lloyds’ syndicates, which syndicates also assumed part of the risk as direct insurers. When a satellite sold to a Middle Eastern company failed, an arbitration was commenced under the auspices of the International Chamber of Commerce in Paris, France, with the governing law being the civil laws of Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. The rules of that proceeding provided for limited discovery. The Lloyds’ syndicates filed a declaratory judgment action against Boeing in Illinois state court, seeking a declaration of their obligations as both direct insurer and reinsurer. The court stayed the lawsuit pending the outcome of the arbitration. The court of appeals affirmed, finding that the action was premature prior to the determination of liability in the arbitration, and that it was an improper attempt to obtain discovery for use in the arbitration. The dual roles of some of the parties in the two proceedings played an important role in the decision. This opinion presents a very interesting analysis of the interface between these two proceedings. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds’ v. Boeing, No. 1-07-1667 (Ill.Ct.App. Je. 30, 2008).

This post written by Rollie Goss.

DISTRICT COURT CERTIFIES STANDING ISSUE FOR INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL IN CAPTIVE REINSURER KICKBACK CASE

by

On July 21, 2008, we reported on the decision of a court denying a motion to dismiss, which contended that the filed rate doctrine barred claims relating to alleged kickbacks on mortgage insurance placed with a captive reinsurer. One of the issues addressed was whether the plaintiffs, who are borrowers, have standing to assert claims that their lender and a mortgage reinsurance company violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act by collecting illegal referral payments in the form of excessive reinsurance premiums. The district court has denied a motion for reconsideration, but has certified the issue of whether the plaintiffs have standing to sue for interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1292(b). Under §1292, the Third Circuit has discretion to accept or decline to accept the interlocutory appeal. Alexander v. Washington Mutual, Inc., Case No. 07-4426 (USDC E.D. Pa. Aug. 4, 2008).

This post written by Rollie Goss.

COMMUTATION AGREEMENT’S JURISDICTION CLAUSE IS EXCLUSIVE AND MANDATORY, UK COMMERCIAL COURT HOLDS

by

Allstate applied for a stay of proceedings in a UK Commercial Court action brought by Equitas pending the outcome of arbitration in Texas between Allstate and a non-party, Highlands. The English action concerned the scope of a commutation agreement between, among others, Allstate and Equitas. The agreement was governed by English law and contained an exclusive English jurisdiction clause. The claims in the action – the applicability of the commutation agreement to certain Lloyd’s syndicates’ claimed interests in common account excess of loss reinsurance contracts and whether Highland could recover pursuant to the contracts – were also the subject of the Texas arbitration. This was insufficient to warrant a stay of proceedings, however, principally because of the jurisdiction selection clause. The effect of the clause made English jurisdiction exclusive and mandatory, depriving the court of its common law discretion to stay proceedings in favor of another jurisdiction on classic forum non conveniens grounds. Equitas Limited v. Allstate Insurance Company [2008] EWHC 1671 (Comm. July 17, 2008).

This post written by Brian Perryman.

ENGLISH COURT DENIES INSURANCE COMPANIES’ REQUEST TO STAY PENDING A PRIOR-FILED CASE IN US DISTRICT COURT

by

Seaton Insurance Company and Stonewell Insurance Company are involved in litigation with Cavell USA, owned by British citizen Kenneth Randall, over Cavell’s handling of the run-off of their insurance obligations under an administration agreement. The parties entered into a written settlement of their disputes, and the settlement agreement contained a provision that the settlement “shall be governed by and construed in accordance with English law and the parties submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts.”

After entering into the settlement with Cavell, Seaton and Stonewell initiated arbitration with their reinsurers in the US, National Indemnity Company, and served subpoenas on Cavell. Seaton and Stonewell also sued Cavell in the US, alleging that Cavell fraudulently concealed its intention to delegate claims handling to the reinsurer. Allegations of such wrongdoing had been dismissed from the US arbitration. Cavell filed a motion to dismiss, and contended that any suit should be brought in the UK under the terms of the settlement.

Cavell then separately sued Seaton and Stonewell in the UK, seeking a declaration that all of their disputes had been compromised, and seeking damages resulting from Seaton and Stonewell involving it in the US arbitration and the US lawsuit. Seaton and Stonewell gave notice that they would challenge the jurisdiction of the UK court, and sought a stay of the UK lawsuit pending a decision on the motion to dismiss the US lawsuit they had filed.

The Queen’s Bench Division of the Commercial Court refused the insurance companies’ application for a stay for proceedings, finding that the resolution of the motion to dismiss in the US court would not assist it in resolving the jurisdictional challenge in the UK lawsuit. The court also stated that “it is difficult to see how the defendants can challenge the jurisdiction of this court at that stage.” This case is an interesting example of the interplay between proceedings in different countries. Cavell USA Inc. v. Seaton Ins. Co. [2008] EWHC 876 (April 11, 2008).

This post written by Rollie Goss (with thanks to Jason Morris).