Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

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

Arbitration / Court Decisions

Second Circuit Affirms Order Compelling Arbitration, Rejects as Waived Arguments Not Made Before Trial Court

by

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals had no difficulty affirming a district court’s order compelling the executor of an estate to arbitrate his claims based on an arbitration clause contained in an IRA application signed by the deceased.

At oral argument, the executor (an attorney appearing pro se) admitted that he had forfeited any argument that the arbitration provision itself was invalid, and thus was left to rely on the theory that the contract as a whole was invalid. The Second Circuit easily rejected this, noting that the U.S. Supreme Court has held that “unless [a] challenge is to the arbitration clause itself, the issue of the contract’s validity is considered by the arbitrator in the first instance.” Thus, the Court found that the matter should go to arbitration where the arbitrator could decide the question of the contract’s validity.

The executor also argued that the district court erred in even considering the motion to compel due to an “electronic filing error” not specified in the opinion. However, in addition to being waived for not having been raised before the district court, the Court found that this argument lacked all merit because the executor knew about the motion, responded to it, and could not show any prejudice.

Aretakis v. First Financial Equity, Corp., Hilltop Securities, Inc., No. 17-3649 (2d Cir. Dec. 10, 2018)

11th Circuit Compels Arbitration Despite Allegation that Arbitration Agreement was Procedurally and Substantively Unconscionable

by

This case involves a dispute between American Family Life Assurance Company of Columbus (“Aflac”) and a group of independent contractors (“associates”), arising out of alleged misrepresentations by Aflac. Pursuant to their contracts with Aflac, the associates agreed to arbitrate any claims against the company, and after learning of the associates’ plans to file a class action, Aflac filed a motion to compel arbitration in Georgia state court. In response, the associates removed the case to federal court and sought to void the arbitration agreement by arguing that it was procedurally and substantively unconscionable.

Specifically, the associates argued that (1) they did not have a sufficient opportunity to review the arbitration provision before executing the agreement, (2) that the agreement was one-sided because it required the associates to arbitrate claims against Aflac, but did not include the same requirement for Aflac, and (3) the costs and fees to be paid by the associates were so great that it would effectively deny the associates a forum to bring their claims. The district court for the Middle District of Georgia found these arguments unavailing and entered an order compelling arbitration.

The associates moved for reconsideration, but were denied. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s order to compel arbitration de novo. However, the court’s analysis did not progress past the associates’ failure to produce any evidence in support of their unconscionability claims at the briefing and hearing stage. For some of their arguments, the Eleventh Circuit noted that even if the associates had produced evidence, Georgia law governing mutuality of remedies and confidentiality provisions in arbitration agreements still would not support a finding that the agreement was unconscionable. As such, the panel affirmed the district court’s judgment compelling arbitration and denying the motion for reconsideration.

American Family Life Assurance Co. of Columbus v. Hubbard, et al., No. 18-11869 (11th Cir. Jan. 7, 2019).

DC District Court Permits Vantage Commodities To File Amended Complaint And Denies Reinsurer Defendants’ Motion For Interlocutory Appeal

by

The District Court for the District of Columbia issued an order denying a motion to reconsider its prior order allowing Vantage Commodities to file an amended complaint and denying the reinsurer defendants’ motion for interlocutory appeal. In the underlying decision, the court determined that, while Vantage had not stated a claim for breach of contract because it had failed to allege facts showing a contractual relationship, the complaint adequately stated claims for breach of implied contract, promissory estoppel, and unjust enrichment.

The court found that Vantage had alleged enough facts to survive a motion to dismiss, noting that the court was required to draw all reasonable inferences in Vantage’s favor at the motion to dismiss stage. That determination was limited to the specific allegations in Vantage’s amended complaint, and did not “create new law.”

The court refused to exercise its discretion to allow an interlocutory appeal of its non-final order, finding that the questions of law the reinsurers presented were “tied up in the specific facts of this case.” Furthermore, while the reinsurers argued that the court’s prior order “goes against the weight of authority in reinsurance law that an insured cannot maintain a direct action against a reinsurer,” they failed to cite any specific case law showing that the court’s order was in conflict with other authorities. The court concluded that the reinsurer defendants did not meet their burden of showing that the circumstances of this case justified a departure from the basic policy of postponing appellate review until after the entry of final judgment. For more information regarding this case, see our prior posts here and here.

Vantage Commodities Financial Services I, LLC v. Assured Risk Transfer PCC, LLC, Case No. 1:17-CV-01451 (USDC D.D.C. Jan. 17, 2019).

Court Confirms Arbitration Award In Reinsurance Dispute Involving Quota Share Retrocessional Agreement

by

A court confirmed a final arbitration award in favor of Continental Insurance Company (as successor by merger to Continental Reinsurance Corporation) and against AXA Versicherung AG. Continental Re was a reinsurer of Continental Insurance. AXA, in turn, provided retrocessional reinsurance to Continental Re through a quota share retrocessional agreement. Several years into the agreement, AXA announced that it would no longer make retrocessional payments to Continental Insurance, reasoning that a Loss Portfolio Transfer Reinsurance Agreement (the “LPT Agreement”), which Continental Insurance had recently entered into with a third party, absolved AXA of its responsibility to continue making retrocessional payments. Continental Insurance objected, and the parties went to arbitration. At arbitration, the panel awarded Continental Insurance damages in the amount of $337,034 plus interest. Continental Insurance brought an action to confirm the award, which AXA did not oppose. The court confirmed the award, finding that Continental Insurance met the statutory requirements for confirmation under the Federal Arbitration Act.

Continental Ins. Co. v. AXA Versicherung AG, Case No. 1:18-CV-07349-VEC (USDC S.D.N.Y. Jan. 2, 2019).

Subject Matter Jurisdiction Under Section 7 Of The FAA – The Diversity, “Amount In Controversy,” And “Place Of Sitting” Requirements

by

Presented with an argument that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, the Southern District of New York clarified the diversity, amount in controversy, and “place of sitting” requirements under Section 7 of the FAA – which relates to compelling the attendance of witnesses at arbitration.

With regard to diversity, the court held that, when presented with a Section 7 petition to enforce arbitration summonses, the court need not “look through” the petition to the citizenship of the parties to the underlying arbitration, but rather, should look to the citizenship of the parties to the instant enforcement action, to determine whether diversity jurisdiction exists. The court distinguished a Section 7 petition from petitions brought under Section 4 and Section 10, where courts may look through the petition to determine federal question jurisdiction, but are not required to do so. The court noted that Section 7 petitions, unlike Section 4 and 10 petitions, involve different parties than those in the underlying arbitration.

As to the “amount in controversy” requirement, the court recited the well-established principle that the amount is measured by “the value of the object of the litigation.” “The amount in controversy is not necessarily the money judgment sought or recovered, but rather the value of the consequences which may result from the litigation.” The petitioner here sought at least $134 million in damages in the underlying arbitration. The court noted that, even if the documents responsive to the summons pertained to only a small fraction of the amount sought in the arbitration, the $75,000 amount in controversy requirement would nevertheless be satisfied.

Finally, regarding Section 7’s requirement that a party petition a United States district court “for the district in which such arbitrators, or a majority of them, are sitting,” the court refused to look to the arbitrators’ individual business addresses to determine the arbitrators’ “place of sitting.” Rather, the court looked to the location the arbitrators had selected for the Section 7 hearing. Furthermore, the court stated that the arbitrators are not restricted to a single location. Here, the arbitrators had summoned nonparties to appear for hearings in both New York and Philadelphia. Therefore, the court held that the Southern District of New York and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania were the arbitrators’ “place of sitting” for any contest of the respective Section 7 summonses.

Washington National Insurance Co. v. Obex Group, LLC, Case No. 18-CV-9693 (USDC S.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2019).