Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

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

Arbitration / Court Decisions

U.S. INSURER AND BERMUDA CAPTIVE REINSURER NOT CONSIDERED ALTER EGOS

by

In a dispute over a long-term care insurance contract, a court rejected the plaintiff’s allegation that five defendants “are an association of entities acting together for the purpose of providing long term care insurance under the name Ability Insurance and also act as the alter egos and/or agents of each other.” The defendants are Ability Reinsurance Holdings (a Bermuda-based holding company) and 4 subsidiaries, including Ability Resources Holdings, Ability Insurance (U.S. insurer), Ability Reinsurance (Bermuda-based captive reinsurer) and Ability Resources, Inc. The court granted a motion for judgment on the pleadings in favor of the Bermuda-based holding company, the Bermuda-based captive reinsurer, and Ability Resources Holdings for lack of personal jurisdiction based on the determination that they do not act as an alter ego for Ability Insurance. The court held that while regulators permitted Ability Insurance to purchase reinsurance from a member of the same corporate family, that fact “does not render the contractual relationship a ‘sham’ or otherwise make Ability Reinsurance (Bermuda) susceptible to suit in Iowa.” The court also dismissed the claims against Ability Resources, Inc., holding that simply alleging that Ability Resources is the alter ego of Ability Insurance, “without more,” failed to satisfy federal pleading requirements. Schultz v. Ability Insurance Co., Case No. 2:11-cv-01020-JSS (USDC N.D. Iowa Oct. 9, 2012).

This post written by Abigail Kortz.

See our disclaimer.

FEDERAL COURT DENIES MOTION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD AND SANCTIONS PARTY SEEKING VACATUR

by

Employer Southwestern Electric Cooperative entered into an agreement with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 702 regarding the number of union members’ sick days. The agreement included a grievance procedure and an arbitration process for grievances that could not be resolved internally. A union employee sought thirteen weeks of sick leave; Southwestern and the union deadlocked on whether the employees’ request should be granted. The dispute was submitted to arbitration and the arbitrator sided with the employee.

Southwestern moved to vacate, arguing that the arbitrator’s award did not draw its essence from the parties’ agreement and, further, that the arbitrator exceeded his authority in rendering the award. The court denied the motion to vacate, finding that the arbitrators’ decision “had a plausible foundation in the agreement.” The court further held that the challenge to the award was “substantially without merit” as the court could not “discern how [Southwestern] could logically believe that th[e] dispute was not subject to arbitration.” Accordingly, it granted the union’s motion for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, ordering Southwestern to pay the union’s fees and costs in defending the motion to vacate. Sw. Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Local 702, Case No. 11-1047 (USDC S.D. Ill. August 27, 2012).

This post written by Ben Seessel.

See our disclaimer.

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMS CONFIRMATION OF AWARD IN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION

by

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a Florida federal court’s confirmation of an award from an international arbitration, which was challenged by Triangula Pisos E Paineis, LTDA (“Triangulo”), the party against whom the award was made. Triangulo contended that the award should be vacated under a provision of the Federal Arbitration Act allowing vacatur based on an arbitrator’s refusal to hear evidence pertinent to the controversy. Without deciding whether the FAA even applied, as Triangulo had argued, the Court held that even if it did, Triangulo failed to make the requisite showing to demonstrate that the arbitrator had in fact refused to hear pertinent evidence. It affirmed the trial court’s denial of vacatur and confirmation of the award against Triangulo. Triangulo Pisos E Paineis, LTDA v. BR-111 Imports & Exports, Inc., No. 12-10776 (11th Cir. Aug. 24, 2012).

This post written by John Pitblado.

See our disclaimer.

VERMONT SUPREME COURT SENDS BANK BACK INTO CLASS ARBITRATION

by

The Vermont Supreme Court reversed a trial court order that had the effect of precluding class arbitration where the parties’ agreement was silent on the issue. The trial court based its ruling on the then-recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Stolt-Nielsen SA v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp. However, on appeal, the Vermont Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court’s involvement was premature, as it was not based on a timely vacatur or confirmation action, as required to invoke a court’s jurisdiction under the Vermont Arbitration Act. The defendant bank failed to timely challenge the arbitrator’s pre-Stolt-Nielsen decision allowing class arbitration, and failed to re-raise the issue of arbitrability with the arbitrator in light of Stolt-Nielsen. Bandler and Bandler & Co. v. Charter One Bank, No. 2011-249 (VT Oct. 5, 2012).

This post written by John Pitblado.

See our disclaimer.

COURT ENFORCES FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE IN REINSURANCE AGREEMENTS AND TRANSFERS ARBITRATION DISPUTE UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1404

by

In an arbitration dispute brought in the Western District of Wisconsin over the inability of the parties to choose an arbitrator for reinsurance disputes, the court found that venue was improper and transferred the case to the Southern District of New York under 28 U.S.C. § 1404. Petitioners sought an order compelling the respondent to comply with the method for choosing arbitrators provided for in the arbitration agreement and respondent counterclaimed asking the court to choose an arbitrator since the parties could not agree on one. Respondent also argued that venue was not proper as to petitioners claims because the arbitration agreements included an agreement to hold arbitrations in New York, but argued at the same time that it should be allowed to assert its counterclaim in Wisconsin because it related to appointing an umpire under 9 U.S.C. § 5, which does not include a venue limitation, rather than enforcing an arbitration agreement under 9 U.S.C. §4, which includes a venue limitation. The court determined that the transfer of all claims was appropriate because the Seventh Circuit held in Haber v. Biomet that § 4 requires district courts to enforce forum selection clauses in arbitration agreements and that the counterclaim could not be tried separately from petitioners’ claims because the claims were too intertwined. Employers Ins. Co. of Wausau v. Arrowood Indemnity Co., Case No. 12-283 (USDC W.D. Wis. Oct. 26, 2012).

This post written by Abigail Kortz.

See our disclaimer.