Arbitration / Court Decisions

IN ABSENCE OF A PRESCRIBED METHOD, A PARTY CAN CHOOSE ITS OWN REPLACEMENT ARBITRATOR

May 25, 2011 by Carlton Fields

The manner in which a replacement arbitrator is selected where the agreement is silent was resolved in a recent case. Northwestern National Insurance Company petitioned the court to appoint an ARIAS-certified replacement arbitrator for its reinsurer Insco, Ltd. Insco’s arbitrator had resigned three days before argument on Northwestern’s summary judgment motion amid allegations from both sides that the other’s arbitrator was improperly partial. The arbitration agreement provided that each party would select its own arbitrator and that a neutral umpire would be appointed; the agreement, however, did not supply a method for replacing an arbitrator. Shortly after Northwestern filed its petition, Insco appointed an ARIAS-certified arbitrator of its own choosing. The court denied Northwestern’s request. Although the court had the power to appoint an arbitrator under Section 5 of the FAA, allowing Insco to appoint a replacement was consistent with the terms of the reinsurance agreement and the underlying goals of arbitration. Northwestern National Insurance Co. v. INSCO, Ltd., Case No. 11 Civ. 1124 (USDC S.D.N.Y. May 12, 2011).

This post written by Ben Seessel.

COURT DISMISSES CASE AGAINST FOREIGN REINSURER FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION

May 24, 2011 by Carlton Fields

Pacific Employers Insurance Company entered into a quota share reinsurance agreement with AXA Belgium in the 1970s, when Pacific was a California domiciliary. The agreement was never formalized so it included no terms concerning exclusive jurisdiction, service of suit, choice of law or forum selection. Pacific moved its offices to Pennsylvania in the early 1990s. Pacific continued to bill AXA on occasion, and AXA paid claims and submitted billings to Pacific at its Pennsylvania office. The parties then became engaged in dispute over AXA’s continuing obligations. Pacific brought suit in Pennsylvania federal court. AXA challenged personal jurisdiction. Pacific produced evidence in support of its claim of jurisdiction, including billings AXA sent to it in Pennsylvania, and the fact that AXA representatives had conducted an audit of Pacific at its Pennsylvania offices. It also contended that AXA directed numerous written and telephone communications to Pacific in Pennsylvania. Finally, Pacific argued that AXA did other substantial business in Pennsylvania, in support of its “general jurisdiction” claim. The Court rejected all of Pacific’s claims, and granted AXA’s Rule 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss. Pacific Employers Ins. Co. v. AXA Belgium, S.A., No. 09-5211 (USDC E.D. Pa. April 27, 2011).

This post written by John Pitblado.

REINSURANCE BROKER CANNOT BE SUED FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY

May 23, 2011 by Carlton Fields

Insurance brokers are not subject to breach of fiduciary duty claims under California law, a court held. Workmen’s Auto Insurance Co. sued its reinsurance intermediary-broker, Guy Carpenter & Co., for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract in connection with Carpenter’s placement of a finite quota share reinsurance agreement on Workmen’s behalf. The trial court granted Carpenter’s motion for summary adjudication with respect to Workmen’s allegation that Carpenter failed to secure the best terms for reinsurance, and sustained Carpenter’s demurrer on Workmen’s breach of fiduciary claim. A jury found for Carpenter on the negligence and breach of contract claims. Workmen’s appealed, but the court of appeal affirmed, holding that an insurance broker cannot be sued for breach of fiduciary duty. An insurance broker’s duties are defined by California insurance law, which ascribes to brokers a duty of care, not a fiduciary duty. The appellate court declined to address as untimely raised Workmen’s argument that the standard should be different for reinsurance brokers because the nature of the relationship with the client is more complex and comprehensive. Workmen’s Auto Insurance Co. v. Guy Carpenter & Co., No. B211660 (Cal. Ct. App. May 4, 2011).

This post written by Ben Seessel.

$1.2 BILLION SETTLEMENT OF PROPERTY DAMAGE CLAIMS ARISING FROM 9/11 TERRORIST ATTACKS AFFIRMED

May 19, 2011 by Carlton Fields

The Second Circuit has affirmed a $1.2 billion settlement of numerous property damage claims made against American Airlines, United Airlines, and their respective security firms, that arose from the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on Towers One and Two of the World Trade Center. The settlement, which was approved based on New York law, was challenged by a group of plaintiffs that elected not to participate in the mediation of the case. In affirming the settlement, the Second Circuit rejected arguments that the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act of 2001 (the “ATSSA”) preempted New York law, that the settlement was not fair, and that the defendants’ settlement payments could not be credited towards their liability limits under the ATSSA. In re September 11 Property Damage Litigation, No. 10-2970 (2d Cir. April 8, 2011).

This post written by Michael Wolgin.

MOTION TO TRANSFER REINSURANCE MATTER TO DISTRICT HEARING RELATED CASES INVOLVING DIFFERENT REINSURERS DENIED

May 18, 2011 by Carlton Fields

Plaintiff White Mountains Re, successor in interest to MONY Re, filed an action in the New York Supreme Court against Travelers asserting claims for declaratory judgment and breach of contract arising out of a dispute concerning certain reinsurance contracts. Travelers removed the action to the US District Court for the Southern District of New York and subsequently filed a motion to transfer this action to the District of Connecticut. There are a number of related cases concerning the reinsurance contracts pending in the US District Court for the District of Connecticut, although White Mountains Re is not a party in any of the Connecticut actions. The District Court denied Travelers’ motion, concluding that although the action could have been filed in the District of Connecticut originally, White Mountain Re’s choice of forum is “given great weight.” Further, the Court concluded that while the current action is related to those in the District of Connecticut, White Mountain Re’s suit was not filed in response to a direct threat of litigation in the other forum. Accordingly, Travelers failed to show that transfer was appropriate. White Mountains Reinsurance Co. of Am. v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Co., Case No. 11-390 (S.D. N.Y. Apr. 13, 2011).

This post written by John Black.