It has been estimated that as a result of Hurrican Katrina, the Mississippi Windstorm Underwriters Association will pay its insurance company members approximately $700 million in claims. The Association has only $175 million in reinsurance. A number of members have sued various members of the Association and individuals, who allegedly were members of the Board of Directors of the Association, contending that they breached fiduciary duties and committed other wrongdoing in failing to procure additional reinsurance for the Association. The Association purchased reinsurance to cover a 250 year event; the Plaintiffs contend that it should have purchased reinsurance to cover a 500 year event. A US District Court has denied a motion to dismiss and denied cross motions for summary judgment. The Motion to Dismiss had contended that the dispute was subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Mississippi Insurance Commissioner. This theory was rejected, in part because the Court found that any administrative remedy that the Insurance Department could provde would not be adequate. The Motion for Summary Judgment was denied because of factual disputes as to whether Board members were member companies or individuals, and if individuals, whether the individuals served in an individual capacity or as representatives of member companies.
Arbitration / Court Decisions
REINSURER’S ATTEMPT TO ENFORCE INDEMNITY AGREEMENT FAILS
This dispute centered around a 1995 General Indemnity Agreement (“GIA”) between defendant PEC and Amwest, a surety company. Pursuant to the GIA, PEC agreed to indemnify Amwest in connection with any bonds written on behalf of PEC. In late 1998 or early 1999, Amwest issued a performance bond to the United States as obligee, with PEC as principal, in connection with a construction contract for the Army Corps of Engineers. Shortly thereafter, Swiss Re agreed to provide reinsurance to Amwest on that performance bond.
Two years later, a Nebraska court declared Amwest insolvent and entered an order of liquidation. When PEC was unable to obtain substitute bonding for the Corps construction project, PEC’s involvement was terminated and Swiss Re was required to complete the project at a cost of over 1.4 million dollars, exclusive of legal fees. Swiss Re filed the instant case seeking to enforce the indemnity agreement between Amwest and PEC.
The district court held that the indemnity agreement did not require PEC to indemnify Swiss Re. Specifically, the court concluded that: (1) the indemnity agreement was unenforceable due to a failure of consideration and/or Amwest’s prior material breach of the contract; and (2) the GIA was unenforceable under the doctrine of ‘frustration of purpose.’ Swiss Reinsurance v. Airport Industrial Park doing business as P.E.C. Contracting Engineers, Case No. 2:05-cv-01127 (USDC W.D. Pa. Aug. 27, 2007).
COURT OF APPEALS HOLDS THAT ARBITRATION AGREEMENT DEADLINES TO BE STRICTLY ENFORCED
The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has held that time deadlines in arbitration agreement must be strictly enforced, affirming a District Court decision previously reported on in this blog in December 11, 2006 and August 24, 2006 posts. The dispute arose out of the timing of appointing an arbitrator in an international arbitration.
The Seventh Circuit affirmed a district court’s ruling that when Argonaut, a California-based insurer, missed the deadline for appointing one of the arbitrators in an international arbitration, it lost its right to appoint an arbitrator. The arbitration agreement required that the parties make their appointments by a certain time. The appointment deadline fell on the Sunday of Labor Day weekend. When Argonaut did not appoint its arbitrator, Lloyd’s appointed an arbitrator for that position on the panel, giving it two party-appointed arbitrators. Argonaut argued that in light of the holiday, the notice it gave on the Tuesday after Labor Day was a “timely nomination” of the arbitrator. The court disagreed, holding that “[i]n the absence of a choice-of-law provision, we conclude that parties are to be bound to the explicit language of arbitration clauses, with no state-specific exceptions that would extend otherwise clear contractual deadlines.” Certain Underwriters at Lloyds v. Argonaut Ins. Co., No. 04 c 5852 (7th Cir. Aug. 29, 2007).
COURT ENFORCES LIMITATIONS ON DISCOVERY IN CONNECTION WITH RULE 60 MOTION
This case presents an interesting arbitration process issue. In 2004, the parties to this action participated in an arbitration, resulting in a $10,000 award to defendant, Smith Barney. Subsequently, plaintiff filed an action to vacate, and defendant moved to confirm the award. In February, 2005 a California district court confirmed the arbitration award. Plaintiff then filed a motion under Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to vacate that order, and later filed a Renewed Rule 60 Motion. The renewed motion was filed on the grounds that defendant and its counsel had committed “fraud. . . misrepresentation or other misconduct” by making material misrepresentations to the court. Plaintiff also sought discovery under its motion on the basis of newly discovered case law and evidence. The court granted “limited’ discovery. Plaintiff proceeded to use the limited permission granted by the court to “bombard” Defendant with voluminous discovery. Concluding that the Plaintiff’s discovery requests were “inappropriate in breadth” and “went well beyond the limited subjects referred to in the court’s. . . [o]rder,” the Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel and granted Smith Barney’s motion for protective order. Sathianathan v. Smith Barney, Case No. C-04-02130 SBA (JCS) (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2007).
ARBITRATION AWARD CONFIRMATION DECISIONS
Four recent opinions dealt with arbitration award confirmation on a variety of bases.
- In Cuie v. Nordstrom, Inc., No. 07-1114 (3d Cir. Aug. 14, 2007) the court affirmed the denial of a motion to vacate an arbitration award. The Court characterized the arguments of the movant as being nothing more than that the arbitrator had made the wrong decision.
- In Coastal Caisson Corp. v. E. E. Cruz/NAB/Frontier-Kemper, Case No. 05-7462 (USDC S.D. N.Y. Aug. 10, 2007), the court had vacated an initial arbitration decision as being in manifest disregard of law. The court confimed a second award entered after the matter was remanded to the panel. This decision also addresses the availability of pre-judgment interest.
- In Hutchinson v. Farm Family Casualty Ins. Co., Case No. 99-2584 (USDC D. Conn. Aug. 20, 2007), the court denied a motion to vacate an award based upon the contention that the panel's decision with respect to choice of law exceeded its authority.
- In New Regency Productions, Inc. v. Nippon Herald Films, Inc., No. 05-55224 (9th Cir. Sept. 4, 2007), the court affimed the vacation of an award on the basis of evident partiality on the part of the arbitrator. The arbitrator took a new employment position and failed to investigate a potential conflict. The court held that he was under a duty to investigate potential conflicts and make an appropriate disclosure, and that the fact that the arbitrator did not have actual knowledge of a conflict did not excuse this breach of duty.