Arbitration / Court Decisions

SECOND CIRCUIT REMANDS FOR CONSIDERATION OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION ISSUES WITH RESPECT TO ORDER CONFIRMING CHINESE ARBITRATION AWARD

April 27, 2011 by Carlton Fields

Last year, we reported that the Southern District of New York had confirmed an arbitration award made by the China Maritime Arbitration Commission against Pactrans Air & Sea, Inc. (“Pactrans”), notwithstanding Pactrans’ argument that the award was being challenged before the proper authorities in China. The judgment recognizing the award was subsequently appealed by Pactrans on jurisdictional grounds. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the case, instructing the district court to determine whether it decided the issue of its personal jurisdiction over Pactrans, and, if not, to enter an order to show cause why it should not dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction. China Nat’l Chartering Corp. v. Pactrans Air & Sea, Inc., No. 09-4956 (2d. Cir. Jan. 19, 2011).

This post written by Ben Seessel.

COURT COMPELS FINRA ARBITRATION OF EMPLOYMENT DISPUTE

April 25, 2011 by Carlton Fields

Kevin Imhoff left his job as a broker for Primerica, for whom he sold various securities and insurance products, to go work for a competitor. He sued Primerica in state court, alleging that they harmed his relationship with his clients and with AIG (one of the insurance companies whose products he sold), as a result of various communications Primerica sent announcing his departure. Primerica filed a petition in federal court seeking to compel arbitration under FINRA. Imhoff conceded he agreed to arbitrate certain disputes, as set forth in his FINRA registration, but that the dispute pertaining to his sale of insurance products was exempt from arbitration by FINRA Rule 13200. The Court rejected this claim, narrowly construing Rule 13200’s exception for “insurance related claims,” which states that “disputes arising out of insurance business activities of a member that is also an insurance company are not required to be arbitrated under FINRA,” and finding that it does not encompass employment disputes, but rather only “intrinsically insurance” claims. The Court compelled arbitration of all claims. PFS Investments, Inc. v. Imhoff, No. 11-10142 (USDC E.D. Mich. March 25, 2011).

This post written by John Pitblado.

COURT STANDS BY “NERVE CENTER” DETERMINATION IN REINSURANCE DISPUTE

April 21, 2011 by Carlton Fields

On January 27, 2011, we reported on a court’s application of the “nerve center” test to dismiss for lack of diversity of citizenship a case seeking the return of excess reinsurance deposit. The insurer alleged its domicile in the complaint, but failed to allege the location of its principal place of business. The nerve center was the “single place” where direction, control and coordination originated. The court earlier found that to be the state where the insurer’s president, secretary, and director were located, and not the state where most of the insurer’s board of directors and board meetings were located. The court has now denied the plaintiff’s motion to reconsider that finding, holding that plaintiff’s motion was “nothing more than a request for a second bite at the apple.” Health Facilities of California Mutual Insurance Co., Inc. v. British American Insurance Group, Ltd., Case No. CV 10-3736 (USDC C.D. Cal. April 5, 2011).

This post written by Michael Wolgin.

CLAIMANT IN UK COURT ENTITLED TO ENGINEERING REPORTS OF DAMAGED HIGHWAY COVERED UNDER REINSURANCE AGREEMENT

April 18, 2011 by Carlton Fields

The UK Commercial Court, Queens Bench Division, recently decided a discovery matter in a reinsurance dispute. The litigation arose out of a dispute under a facultative reinsurance contract, which reinsured claimant Axa Seguros’ participation in an insurance policy covering risks of physical damage to a “Toll Road Network concession” in Mexico. After a hurricane caused damage to a highway, Axa Seguros initiated arbitration and subsequently filed suit against Allianz, seeking indemnity for sums said to be due under the reinsurance contract. Axa sought all reports and associated documents produced by Halcrow, an engineering company hired to inspect the damaged highway. Allianz, for its part, claimed a litigation privilege on the basis that it was obtained and prepared for the purpose of obtaining legal advice in connection with expected litigation. The presiding justice concluded that, although litigation was reasonably expected at the time the reports were made, the reports were not generated for the predominant purpose of anticipated litigation. Rather, they were generated to assess whether the highway had been constructed up to international standards, and to determine what damage had been caused by the hurricane. Accordingly, Axa was entitled to the materials sought. Axa Seguros, S.A. DE C.V. v. Allianz Ins. PLC, 2011 EWHC 268, Case No. 2007 Folio 1396 (Comm. Ct. Q.B. Feb. 3, 2011).

This post written by John Black.

COURT EXERCISES PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER CANADIAN CORPORATION BUT FINDS MOTION TO VACATE PARTIAL FINAL ARBITRAL AWARD IS NOT JUSTICIABLE

April 14, 2011 by Carlton Fields

Pearl Seas Cruises, LLC (“PSC”), a Marshall Islands company whose members are Connecticut residents, petitioned a Connecticut federal district court to vacate a partial final arbitral award issued by a panel of arbitrators in connection with its dispute against Canadian corporation, Irving Shipbuilding Incorporated (“ISI”). ISI moved to dismiss, arguing that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over it and that PSC’s petition was premature because no final arbitration award had been issued yet by the panel. The court held that because ISI’s sales pitch, contract negotiations, and several meetings to resolve issues regarding contract performance occurred in Connecticut, ISI had the required minimum contacts with Connecticut to subject it to the court’s jurisdiction. However, the court held that PSC’s petition was not justiciable because the panel had not yet issued a final arbitral award. Pearl Seas Cruises, LLC v. Irving Shipbuilding, Inc., Case No. 10-1294 (USDC D. Conn. Feb. 9, 2011)

This post written by Ben Seessel.