Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

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

Arbitration / Court Decisions

NINTH CIRCUIT: DISTRICT COURTS HAVE REMOVAL JURISDICTION OVER CASES RELATED TO CONVENTION ON FOREIGN ARBITRAL AWARDS

by

In a recent opinion, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on the novel question of whether a district court had removal jurisdiction under 9 U.S.C. § 205 where a defendant raises an affirmative defense relating to an arbitral award falling under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. The case arose from a dispute over medical licensing rights between entities from the British Virgin Islands, Israel, and California. After an arbitration decision finding that Infuturia Global had a valid license to develop, market, and use certain medical techniques, a California federal district court lifted an existing litigation stay on a related state court action. Infuturia moved to remand, arguing that removal was improper under 9 U.S.C. § 205 because defendants were not party to the foreign arbitration agreement. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling, holding that because an arbitration agreement or award falling under the Convention “relates to” an action’s subject matter if it could conceivably affect the action’s outcome, a district court does indeed have jurisdiction. Infuturia Global Ltd. v. Sequus Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 09-16378 (9th Cir. Feb. 7, 2011).

This post written by John Black.

ARBITRATION TERMINATING RETROCESSIONAL INSURANCE RULED INADMISSIBLE IN RELATED SUIT AGAINST REINSURANCE BROKER

by

On April 21, 2009, we reported on a case in which reinsurance broker Aon Re prevailed at trial against reinsurer Reliastar Life. Reliastar claimed Aon failed to disclose the potential termination of the reinsurance pool’s retrocessional insurance by its retrocessionaires. An appellate court has now affirmed the judgment for Aon. The appellate court rejected Reliastar’s arguments for reversal, including the argument that the trial court erred by excluding the arbitration decision that ultimately terminated the pool’s retrocessional insurance. The arbitration decision was irrelevant and inadmissible hearsay because Aon was not a party to the arbitration. The court further reasoned that only the timing of when the retrocessionaires considered their agreement ineffective, and not the fact that an arbitration eventually terminated the agreement, was relevant to Reliastar’s claim. The arbitration decision could have mislead the jury by imputing “guilt by association” to Aon for the retrocessional insurance’s termination. Reliastar Life Insurance Co. v. Roger Smith & Aon Re, Inc., Case No. A-4484-08T2 (N.J. App. Div. Mar. 1, 2011).

This post written by Michael Wolgin.

INSURER GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CONTRACTUAL NOTICE PROVISION

by

A federal district court granted summary judgment to insurer Lexington Insurance Company because insured Untied Health Care Group failed to comply with the notice provision in United’s insurance contract, prejudicing Lexington. The contract stated that United would give notice as soon as practicable of any claim where United reserved at or above 50% of its SIR of $3 million. United litigated a lawsuit filed in May 2001 for seven years, incurring nearly $20 million in legal fees and settling in May 2008 for $8.5 million. Untied did not notify Lexington of the claim in a distinct communication until April 2008, but argued that quarterly loss run reports in which the claim appeared as one line item was sufficient notice. The court agreed that such reports could constitute notice, but the reports United submitted inaccurately indicated that the claim had been settled within the SIR in 2006. Lexington was prejudiced because it was denied its contractual right to associate in the investigation, defense, or control of the claim. The court, in its order, mistakenly described Lexington as United’s reinsurer. United has moved for reconsideration, arguing that the court’s mistake in this regard materially affects the propriety of the court’s grant of summary judgment to Lexington because an insured should be afforded more protection against forfeiture of benefits than a reinsured. Lexington Insurance Co. v. United Health Group, Inc., Case No. 09-10504 (U.S.D.C. Feb. 15, 2011)

This post written by Ben Seessel.

SECOND AND THIRD CIRCUITS DISAGREE ON PROCEDURE FOR IMPLEMENTING STOLT-NIELSEN HOLDING AND CLASS ARBITRATION WAIVERS

by

The Second and Third Circuit Courts of Appeal recently issued conflicting opinions on the enforceability of class arbitration waivers. Jose Ivan Vilches brought a purported class action against his former employer, The Travelers Companies, Inc., for unpaid wages and overtime, in violation of labor laws. Travelers moved to compel arbitration on an individual basis, citing the class arbitration waiver in the employment contract. The district court granted the motion and compelled individual arbitration. On appeal, the Third Circuit held, citing Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. Animalfeeds Int’l Corp., 130 S. Ct. 1758 (2010), that it was error for the district court to have decided whether the case could be arbitrated as a class action, finding that it should have left decision on that point to the panel. It also rejected plaintiff’s contention that the class action waiver was unconscionable, and therefore unenforceable. It vacated that portion of the district court’s decision, and ordered the parties to arbitrate the question of the applicability of the class arbitration waiver to the panel. Vilches v. The Travelers Companies, Inc., No. 10-2888 (3d Cir. Feb. 9, 2011)

Meanwhile, the Second Circuit came to precisely the opposite conclusions in a case that was remanded back to it after the U.S. Supreme Court vacated its prior decision for consideration in light of Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. Animalfeeds Int’l Corp., 130 S. Ct. 1758 (2010). The case involved a putative class of vendors who alleged that they were improperly charged by American Express for accepting payments from its cardholders. American Express sought to have the matter arbitrated on an individual, rather than class, basis. The Second Circuit held that: (1) the issue of whether the case can be arbitrated as a class action is for the Court, not the arbitration panel to decide; and (2) the class arbitration waiver was unconscionable and therefore unenforceable because it effectively deprived the plaintiffs of a statutory right. In re: American Express Merchants’ Litigation, No. 06-1871 (2d Cir. March 8, 2011).

This post written by John Pitblado.