Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

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

Jurisdiction Issues

District Court Denies U.K. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss For Lack of Personal Jurisdiction

by

Defendants, employees of the U.K. based Marsh Services Limited, provided services to plaintiff Guy Carpenter & Company (“Guy Carpenter”) in the field of facultative reinsurance. In April 2007, the Defendants resigned from Marsh Services to join Integro, a competitor of plaintiffs. By doing so, Plaintiffs allege that defendants breached a non-solicitation provision of their contract. This contract contained two forum selection clauses.

One of the defendants, Ron Whyte, moved to dismiss on the basis that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over him and on based upon the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Whyte argued that the existence of a second forum selection clause in “Schedule II.D” of the contract created an ambiguity which rendered the forum selection clause in the body of the Agreement unenforceable. The court disagreed, denying the motion to dismiss, and holding that the forum selection clause in Schedule II.D did not apply to the issue, and was, in any event, non-exclusive. Guy Carpenter & Co. v. Julian Samengo-Turner, Ron Whyte, and Marcus Hopkins, Case No. 07 Civ. 3580 (USDC S.D. N.Y. June 29,2007).

Court Resolves Service Issue and Stays US Action Pending Prior-Filed Canadian Action

by

Canada Life Assurance and Converium Ruckversicherung were parties to a reinsurance agreement that experienced losses as a result of the September 11 attack on the World Trade Centers. A dispute led to an arbitration in Canada and a lawsuit in Canada to vacate the award. Due to a concern as to whether the Canadian Court had jurisdiction, Canada Life filed an action in United States District Court in New Jersey, purporting to make service on Converium’s US counsel in the arbitration. The district court found the service insufficient and quashed it, but declined to dismiss, ordering Canada Life to effectuate service in compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure rather than the Federal Arbitration Act, which the Court held did not apply to service of a motion to vacate upon a non-US corporation. Applying principles of international comity, the Court stayed the action pending the resolution of the prior-filed Canadian lawsuit. Canada Life Assur. Co. v. Converium Ruckversicherung AG, Case No. 06-3800 (USDC D.N.J. June 13, 2007).

Court affirms dismissal of most claims against Republic of Indonesia and state-owned insurer under Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act

by

Anglo-Iberia Underwriting Management Company and Industrial Re International sued an employee of the Indonesian state-owned social security insurer, Jamsostek, who while on leave in Colorado studying for an M.B.A. perpetrated an international reinsurance fraud scam that cost the Plaintiffs an estimated $55 million. Plaintiffs also sued Jamsostek and the Republic of Indonesia, alleging that they had breached contractual obligations to Plaintiffs and negligently failed to supervise their employee. The district court had dismissed all claims against Indonesia and Jamsostek based upon the sovereign immunity conferred by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. The Second Circuit addressed the issue of whether the immunity exception for commercial activities applied. The Court of Appeal found that the contract claims were properly dismissed, but that the district court had failed adequately to consider the negligent supervision claim, and remanded for further consideration with respect to that claim. In remanding, the appellate panel set out the standards for the application of the commercial activity exception. Anglo-Iberia Underwriting Management Co. v.Lodderhose, Case No. 03-9260 (2d Cir. May 25, 2007).

ENGLISH HIGH COURT GRANTS ANTI-SUIT INJUNCTION

by

The English High Court considered an application by Noble and Shell for an anti-suit injunction to restrain Gerling from continuing proceedings in the Vermont courts against both Noble and Shell where there had been a final arbitration award rendered in a London arbitration.

In November 2006 the Vermont court held that it had no jurisdiction to vacate the arbitration award since the seat of the award was London, but accepted subject matter jurisdiction over the claims to rescind the contracts for misrepresentation. In granting the ex parte injunction, the Court held that the misrepresentation claim fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement. The Court also held that the claims raised in the Vermont proceedings could have been raised in the London arbitration and that Gerling was estopped from raising those claims in the Vermont proceedings.

On the inter partes hearing for a final injunction, the Court held that Gerling’s conduct in attempting to nullify the effect of the arbitration award by court proceedings in Vermont against both Noble and its parent Shell, based on assertions contrary to the findings in the award, was vexatious, oppressive, an abuse of process and unconscionable. This decision confirms the jurisdiction of the English court to grant an anti-suit injunction to protect an arbitration award after the arbitration proceedings have concluded, and not only exiting arbitration proceeding prior to the delivery of an award. Noble Assurance Company and Shell Petroleum Inc. v. Gerling-Konzern General Insurance Company, 2006 EWHC 253 (February 22, 2007).

Court affirms stay of state court action pending resolution of federal court action

by

A New York state appellate court has affirmed a stay of an action involving Lloyd's in deference to a pending federal court action concerning coverage and indemnity for asbestos-related claims. In a perfunctory opinion, the court noted that the plaintiffs in the underlying action had “remained inactive for 20 years ….” While the state court action had been filed three years before the action was filed in federal court, the appellate court based its decision on “the familiarity of the federal court with the issues, the substantial identy of the parties, and the interdependence of the issues involving primary and excess insurers ….” Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London v. Pneumo Abex Corp., Index 602493/02 (App. Div. Jan. 9, 2007).