Arbitration / Court Decisions

INSURER LOSES MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ON ORDER LIMITING REINSURER’S LIABILITY

April 29, 2015 by Carlton Fields

On a motion for reconsideration of a summary judgment entered against it, on which we previously reported, Century Indemnity Company urged a New York federal court to review its order in light of a subsequent decision by a different judge. The ruling Century sought to reverse concluded that the reinsurance limits set forth in each certificate of insurance issued by its reinsurer, Global Reinsurance Corporation of America, were inclusive of costs and expenses and created an overall cap of liability. The intervening decision Century brought to the Court’s attention was Utica Mutual Insurance Co. v. Munich Reinsurance American, Inc., an unpublished 2014 decision by the Second Circuit. Century’s motion was denied. The Utica decision was not controlling law and Century did not introduce new evidence. In addition, Utica would not require a different conclusion given that it was based on the particular language in the certificates in that case, which differed from the language of the certificates issued by Global. Specifically, the language in the certificates in the Utica case made losses and damages subject to the certificates’ limit of liability, but did not include a similar provision for “loss expenses.” Global’s certificates provided a total cap for liability and did not differentiate between reinsurance accepted for loss versus reinsurance accepted for expenses. Global Reinsurance Corp. of America v. Century Indemnity Co., No. 13 Civ. 06577 (USDC S.D.N.Y. Apr. 15, 2015).

This post written by Brian Perryman.

See our disclaimer.

COURT AFFIRMS ARBITRATION PANEL’S $14 MILLION AWARD IN FAVOR OF INSURED IN REINSURANCE DISPUTE OVER ASBESTOS CLAIMS

April 28, 2015 by Carlton Fields

A federal district court has confirmed a $14 million arbitration award entered in favor of Amerisure against its reinsurer Everest. As we earlier reported, the court had previously denied the motion to seal briefing associated with Amerisure’s motion to confirm the award. Now at issue was the confirmation, modification, or vacatur of the award, which directed Everest to indemnify Amerisure for its share of asbestos losses that fell within the parties’ reinsurance treaties. Everest moved to vacate the award on several grounds, including an arbitrator’s “evident partiality” in the proceedings and the panel’s allegedly erroneous procedural and evidentiary rulings. At the core of the reinsurance dispute was whether Amerisure could aggregate individual asbestos losses into a single occurrence in order to exceed the applicable retention and thereby qualify for indemnification under the reinsurance treaties. The panel held that Amerisure could aggregate the losses by relying, in part, on what it found to be the “commonly accepted” business of treating multiple asbestos losses as a single occurrence. The panel rejected the argument that Amerisure’s claim was precluded or undercut by the fact that the underlying claims were settled as individual losses and further discounted the expert opinion testimony offered by Everest as unpersuasive. The district court, in turn, affirmed the award, rejecting all arguments of partiality or erroneous rulings. While Everest had established the panel exceeded its powers in one respect, it did not find that warranted vacatur or modification of the award. Amerisure Mutual Insurance Co. v. Everest Reinsurance Co., Case No. 14-cv-13060 (USDC E.D. Mich. Mar. 18, 2015).

This post written by Renee Schimkat.

See our disclaimer.

COURT DENIES INSURER’S REQUEST TO ARBITRATE

April 27, 2015 by Carlton Fields

In a case involving a dispute arising from a fire at the Wisconsin County Courthouse, a Wisconsin federal court issued an order denying Lexington Insurance Company’s motion to participate in an arbitration between the two insurers primarily responsible for the losses. Lexington argued it was an excess insurer (or reinsurer – the parties disagreed) for the policy issued by the State of Wisconsin Local Government Property Insurance Fund insuring the county. In addition to coverage afforded by the Fund, the county was also insured by Cincinnati Insurance Company for losses to cover machinery and equipment that might not otherwise be covered by the Fund’s policy.

The Fund and the Cincinnati policies included a joint loss agreement (“JLA”) which provided that in the event of a dispute, the insurers would pay half of the disputed amount to their insured, the county, and arbitrate the dispute thereafter. The county took advantage of this provision. Lexington then sought to intervene in the ensuing arbitration, arguing that while its policy did not include a joint loss agreement, it was a follow-form policy which included that provision. The court agreed with Lexington, finding that although the Lexington policy was “a little strange,” it expressly stated it was a follow-form policy to the Fund’s policy and, further, it did not expressly exclude or supersede the joint loss agreement. The court, however, disagreed with Lexington’s view that it was entitled to participate in the arbitration between the Fund and Cincinnati. The joint loss agreement did not apply in this case because it did not apply to Lexington or allow for Lexington’s participation in the arbitration. State of Wisconsin Local Government Property Insurance Fund v. Lexington Insurance Co., Case No. 15-CV-142-JPS (USDC E.D. Wis. Apr. 17, 2015).

This post written by Brian Perryman.

See our disclaimer.

ARBITRATION AWARD CONFIRMED IN QUOTA SHARE REINSURANCE DISPUTE

April 23, 2015 by Carlton Fields

An arbitration award to Petitioner, Employers Insurance of Wausau A Mural Company (“Wausau”), has been confirmed after Respondents withdrew their prior objections. The dispute arose over payment obligations stemming from a Quota Share reinsurance agreement between the Respondents, Nutmeg Insurance Company and Twin City Fire Insurance Company (“Nutmeg/Twin”), and Wausau. The dispute went to arbitration where a panel, finding in favor of Wausau, directed Nutmeg/Twin to provide documentation relating to the claim of loss— including proof of payment and a narrative on the appropriateness of a loss settlement award.

Nutmeg/Twin subsequently objected to Wausau’s petition to confirm the award on jurisdictional grounds for “non-final issues,” specifically the parties’ obligations under various remaining claims. Wausau argued that Nutmeg/Twin’s objections were moot as the parties’ obligations had been performed. The court, however, did not need to resolve this question as Nutmeg/Twin withdrew their arbitration award objections as part of a settlement arrangement. Employers Insurance of Wausau v. Nutmeg Insurance Company, Case No. 14-CV-9284 (USDC S.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2015).

This post written by Matthew Burrows, a law clerk at Carlton Fields in Washington, DC.

See our disclaimer.

FIRST CIRCUIT REINSTATES ARBITRAL AWARD DESPITE ARBITRATION PANEL’S POTENTIALLY ERRONEOUS CONCLUSIONS

April 22, 2015 by Carlton Fields

The First Circuit Court of Appeals recently reversed the district court’s vacatur ruling and remanded the matter for entry of an order confirming an arbitration award. While the First Circuit found that several of the arbitration panel’s holdings may have been erroneous, the court held that “even serious error” by arbitrators will not invalidate an award and, further, “any error by the panel . . . does not rise to the level necessary to justify vacatur.” Plaintiff Robert Fenyk filed a complaint in Vermont state court alleging Raymond James Financial Services (RJFS) fired him because of his sexual orientation and his status as a recovering alcoholic in violation of Vermont employment laws. RJFS countered that Fenyk should not be afforded the protections of Vermont employment law because Fenyk was not an employee. RJFS also moved to compel arbitration pursuant to a previously signed agreement between the parties. Fenyk dismissed the suit and submitted his claims to arbitration.

In arbitration, Fenyk sought to amend his proceeding to bring additional claims under federal, New York, and Florida law. The arbitral panel denied Fenyk’s motion to amend but did award him $600,000 in back pay and $36,042.03 in attorney’s fees and costs. RJFS challenged the award in the district court, arguing that the arbitration panel had misapplied Florida law, the state where Raymond James is based. RJFS further argued that Fenyk’s claims were made beyond the one-year statute of limitations for civil rights cases, and therefore barred. The district court agreed with these positions and vacated Fenyk’s previous award, finding that the arbitrators had exceeded their authority.

A panel of three First Circuit judges unanimously reversed, remanding for the entry of an order confirming the arbitration award. The Court held that although there was uncertainty as to whether the arbitrators had correctly applied applicable law, even “serious error” of law is not a basis for invalidating an arbitration award, and the uncertainty did not establish that they had exceeded their authority under the arbitration provision. Raymond James Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Fenyk, 780 F.3d 59 (1st Cir. 2015) (No. 14-1252).

This post written by Whitney Fore, a law clerk at Carlton Fields in Washington, DC.

See our disclaimer.