In a prior posting (dated 7/24/2006) this blog reported on a Connecticut Supreme Court decision reversing the dismissal of an appeal by the Court of Appeals, holding that the denial of pre-pleading security was an appealable final judgment, and remanding the case to the Court of Appeals for consideration of the merits of the appeal. The trial court had determined that the relevant statutory text required service to be made on the insurance commissioner or the secretary of the state and precluded service made on the unauthorized insurers’ contractually designated agents for service of process. On remand, the court of appeals disagreed with the trial court’s judgment in favor of the defendant insurers. However, the court was persuaded that on remand, for constitutional reasons, the defendant insurers are entitled to a hearing regarding the amount of pre-pleading security that they must provide. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co. v. Ace American Reinsurance Co., AC 25661 (Ct. Ct. App. Aug. 14, 2007).
Arbitration / Court Decisions
ARBITRATION PANEL CAN PROCEED TO AN AWARD AFTER ONE MEMBER RESIGNS
In Zeiler v. Deitsch, No. 06-1893 (2d Cir. Aug. 23,2007), the Court held that an arbitration panel composed of three rabbis could proceed to make an award after one member had resigned from the panel, because the arbitration agreement permitted that result. The Court also affirmed the confirmation of various accounting awards. This opinion is somewhat unique in that the arbitration was governed by Jewish law. The Court also stated, however, that the result would have been the same had the Federal Artbitration Act controlled.
COURT ALLOWS CASE AGAINST DIRECTORS OF MISSISSIPPI WINDSTORM UNDERWRITERS ASSOCIATION TO PROCEED
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.
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).