Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

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

Arbitration / Court Decisions

Round-Up Of Decisions Vacating or Confirming Arbitration Awards

by

Following is a summary of court decisions, some confirming, others vacating, arbitral awards:

Windler v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., Case No. 10-cv-00350 (USDC D. Colo. Aug. 22, 2012) (denying motion to vacate arbitration award, finding that arbitrator did not manifestly disregard the law on reasonable accommodations under the Americans With Disabilities Act)

Barrick Enterprises, Inc. v. Crescent Petroleum, Inc., No. 11-1778 (6th Cir. Aug. 27, 2012) (affirming district court’s confirmation of arbitration award involving dispute under a petroleum supply agreement; finding that ex parte communication between arbitrator and employee was not in excess of arbitrator’s powers and district court did not apply the wrong evidentiary standard in confirming the award)

Scurtu v. Hospitality & Catering Management Services, Case No. 1:07-cv-00410 (USDC D. Ala. Sept. 13, 2012) (denying motion to vacate or modify arbitration award where the movant failed to set forth any grounds under the FAA for vacatur or modification or show how the arbitrator’s award would have satisfied such grounds)

N.J. Regional Council of Carpenters v. Jayeff Construction Corp., No. 11-3872 (3d Cir. Sept. 12, 2012) (affirming district court’s decision vacating arbitration award where there was insufficient evidence that appellee non-union contractor had entered into collective bargaining agreement bearing arbitration clause)

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Smolcheck, Case No. 12-80355 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 17, 2012) (denying motion to vacate and granting motion to confirm arbitration award; rejecting movant’s arguments on evident partiality, arbitrator misconduct, and insufficient opportunity to be heard)

Quench LLC v. Liquor Group Wholesale, Inc., Case No. 3:11-cv-811 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 13, 2012) (denying motion to vacate and granting motion to confirm arbitration award; finding that arbitrator had jurisdiction over signatory to agreement and that respondent was not prejudiced, under the circumstances, by waiting until after the final hearing before deciding whether certain respondents were subject to the arbitrator’s jurisdiction)

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Schwarzwaleder, No. 11-2605 (3d Cir. Aug. 13, 2012) (reversing district court’s decision vacating arbitration award requiring former employee to repay a loan from her former employer; arbitrator’s decision was not “irrational” as to warrant vacatur)

Comerica Bank v. Howsam, No. B232749 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 20, 2012) (affirming orders denying vacatur and confirming arbitration award; finding that arbitrator’s failure to timely disclose potentially disqualifying circumstances, as required under California statute, was not a ground for vacatur of international commercial arbitration award, and, further, that the award was not procured by fraud or corruption, did not result from a manifest disregard of the law, and that the arbitrator did not exceed his powers in deciding alter ego issues)

This post written by Ben Seessel.

See our disclaimer.

Court Finds Reinsurance Brokerage Contract Ambiguous

by

Homeowners Choice, Inc. entered into a brokerage relationship with Aon Benfield, whereby Aon agreed to place reinsurance for Homeowners, as the broker of record, and that Aon would receive a commission from premium written. The parties later amended the agreement to include a revenue sharing provision, whereby Aon agreed to perform claim services for an annual fee. Homeowners then notified Aon that it was changing its broker of record, effective approximately one year from the notice. At the end of the notice period, Homeowners then demanded from Aon approximately $660,000 in revenue sharing fees it claimed were owed under the service agreement aspect of the contract. Aon disputed the claim, and Homeowner’s brought suit. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, both making claims as to the correct interpretation of the contract. The court denied both motions, finding relevant provisions of the contract to be ambiguous, and that issues of fact remained pertaining to resolution of the ambiguities. Homeowners Choice, Inc. v. Aon Benfield, Inc., No. 10 C 7700 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 10, 2012).

This post written by John Pitblado.

See our disclaimer.

Court Enforces Arbitration Agreement Despite “Service-of-Suit” Provision

by

Pacific West Securities Inc. made a claim for coverage with its insurers, relating to underlying securities claims alleged against it in a FINRA proceeding brought by investors. The insurers contested coverage and initiated arbitration under the contracts. Pacific West brought suit in Washington state court, seeking to stay arbitration and have the matter heard in court based on the service-of-suit provision in the parties’ contracts. The insurers removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss the petition to stay the arbitration. Citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, the court granted the motion, finding that the service-of-suit clause and the arbitration clause were compatible and could be read in a reasonable way to further the strong federal policy embodied in the FAA of enforcing arbitration agreements. Pacific West Securities Inc. v. Illinois Union Insurance Co., No. C12-539RSM (USDC W. D. Wash. Aug. 29, 2012).

This post written by John Pitblado.

See our disclaimer.

COURT DENIES DISMISSAL OF PUTATIVE CLASS ACTION ALLEGING KICKBACKS ACCEPTED BY LENDER VIA ITS CAPTIVE REINSURER

by

A breach of contract claim survived dismissal in a potential class action lawsuit by homeowners against a mortgage lender for alleged kickbacks obtained when the lender required the homeowners to pay for force-placed insurance (FPI) on mortgaged properties. The homeowners contended that the lender breached its contractual duty of good faith and fair dealing by funneling back to itself a portion of the premiums paid by the homeowners for the FPI by, among other things, providing reinsurance through its own captive insurance company. While the court held that the contract claim could proceed against the lender, the court dismissed other claims for unfair and deceptive trade practices, and for unjust enrichment. Montanez v. HSBC Mortgage Corp. (USA), Case No. 11-4074 (USDC E.D. Pa. July 18, 2012).

This post written by Michael Wolgin.

See our disclaimer.

FEE-SHIFTING PROVISION IN ARBITRATION CLAUSE UNENFORCEABLE WHEN CERTAIN FEDERAL STATUTORY RIGHTS ARE AT ISSUE

by

In an employment dispute, a Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation which broadly interpreted the arbitration provision in an employment agreement in favor of arbitration. The judge interpreted the term providing that either party “may submit the matter to arbitration” (emphasis added) to mean that once one party elects to arbitrate, the arbitration becomes mandatory with respect to the other party. The judge also interpreted the term which explains that the arbitration clause applies to “any disputes . . . in connection with [Plaintiff’s] rights and obligations under this agreement” (emphasis added) to cover plaintiff’s sex and pay discrimination claims. The district court adopted the Report and Recommendation, except that it granted an objection to a fee-shifting provision of the arbitration clause, requiring that it be severed, finding it to be unenforceable and not essential to the arbitration clause. The fee-shifting provision required the losing party to pay attorneys’ fees. The court found the provision to be unenforceable because the claimant would not have to pay attorneys’ fees to vindicate her federal statutory rights under Title VII and the Equal Pay Act in court, and requiring the claimant to be exposed to that risk to vindicate her rights in an arbitral formum was not consistent with the statute. The district court specifically declined to follow cases from other circuits, which have held that fee-shifting provisions are generally too speculative to prevent a plaintiff from vindicating his or her federal statutory rights in an arbitral forum. Smith v. AHS Oklahoma Heart, LLC, Case No. 11-00691 (USDC N.D. Okla. Aug. 3, 2012).

This post written by Abigail Kortz.

See our disclaimer.