Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

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

Arbitration / Court Decisions

Courts decide issues relating to arbitrability of claims and appointment of arbitrators

by

Three opinions were issued recently of interest regarding arbitration procedures:

  • In Ancon Ins. Co. (U.K.) Limited v. GE Reinsurance Corp., Case No. 06-2106 (USDC D. Kansas Mar. 30, 2007), one party was five days late in appointing an arbitrator due to a mistake by its run-off manager in reporting when an arbitration demand had been received. The party demanding arbitration sought to enforce a provision in the arbitration agreement, which would have allowed it to appoint an arbitrator on behalf of the defaulting party. The Court refused to enforce the provision, allowing the defaulting party to appoint an arbitrator on grounds of fairness and lack of prejudice.

  • In International Ins. Agency Services v. Revios Reinsurance U.S., Case No. 04-1190 (USDC N.D. Ill. Mar. 27, 2007), the Court granted the motion of a reinsurer to compel arbitration against an employee benefits firm that developed, marketed, administered and underwrote group life insurance programs on a fronted basis. The reinsurance agreement contained an arbitration provision, but the employee benefits firm was not a party to the agreement. The Court held that the firm was estopped to refuse to arbitrate, since it was asserting claims against the reinsurer based entirely upon alleged damage to its reputation arising out of the reinsurer's attempted repudiation of the reinsurance agreement.

  • In Invitrogen Corp. v. Employers Ins. Co. of Wausau, Case No. 06-232 (USDC D. Az. Mar. 9, 2007), the Court granted an injunction prohibiting Wausau from pursuing arbitration against Invitrogen under a reinsurance contract, because it found, as a matter of law, that the claims were barred by a settlement agreement reached in a prior proceeding.

CALIFORNIA COURT FINDS NO ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP EXISTS BETWEEN REINSURER AND COUNSEL FOR REINSURED

by

The issue presented in this case relates to the nature and extent of the duty, if any, owed to the reinsurer by counsel retained by the ceding insurer to protect the interests of the insured under the underlying policy.

In this action for professional negligence, Zenith Insurance Company (“Zenith”) entered into a contract of reinsurance with Royal Insurance Company (“Royal”). Under the contract, Zenith agreed to reinsure 100% of Royal’s exposure under certain liability policies. After claims were asserted against Royal’s insured, Royal retained the law firm of Cozen O’Connor to provide legal services with respect to the defense of such claims. Ultimately, Zenith filed this action for professional negligence against Cozen alleging that an attorney-client relationship existed based on either: (1) an implied in fact contract; or (2) the theory that Zenith was an intended beneficiary of Cozen’s legal services.

The California Court of Appeals disagreed with Zenith for two reasons. First, under the “intended beneficiary” theory, both Cozen and Royal must have intended Zenith to be the beneficiary of legal services Cozen was to render. The Court held that the fact that Cozen’s representation could incidentally benefit Zenith did “not sufficiently satisfy this predicate.” Moreover, the fact that Zenith agreed to reimburse Royal for all legal fees did not change the conclusions. Second, there was no express agreement between Zenith and Cozen, and Zenith did not allege the predicate facts necessary to establish an implied contract between it and Cozen. Zenith Ins. Co. v. Cozen O’Connor, Case No. B184684 (Cal. Ct. App., March 21, 2007).

UK Court enjoins depositions in US lawsuit

by

In the autumn of 2006, facultative reinsurance specialists left Benfield to join Aon. Although the principal individuals involved worked in the UK, there were allegations of conspiracy and other misconduct in both the UK and the US. Benfield filed suit in US District Court in New York in October 2006, and in the UK the following month. The UK proceeding proceeded towards a trial in March 2007, while the US proceeding proceeded into discovery without a trial date being set. When it became apparent that Benfield would seek to depose critical witnesses in the US suit prior to the UK trial, while trial preparations were underway, the UK Court enjoined Benfield from taking the depositions until after the UK trial. Although reluctant to take action that would interfere with the US suit, the UK Court noted the slow pace of progress of the US suit, and articulated nine factors that it took into account in reaching its decision. This is a very interesting opinion dealing with the “coordination” and relationships between a UK and a US proceeding. Benfield Holdings Limited v. Aon Limited, [2007] EWHC 171 (Queen's Bench Feb. 21, 2007).

In mid-March, 2007, Aon announced it reached “a global and comprehensive settlement with Benfield… relating to former Benfield facultative reinsurance employees…who will be joining Aon on April 1.” Under the terms of the settlement, Benfield will receive payments over time totaling more than $18 million dollars.

INVESTOR LOSES APPEAL TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD

by

After losing several million dollars in high-risk investments, Michael Lessin filed a statement of claim alleging misrepresentation and negligent supervision against his broker, Brett Bernstein and investment firm, Merrill Lynch. A panel of three NASD arbitrators heard evidence over a six-day period and found Merrill Lynch, but not Bernstein, liable to Lessin for compensatory damages of $32,975. Lessin sought to vacate the arbitration award on the basis that the arbitration panel refused to hear one of his expert witnesses and demonstrated a manifest disregard of the law in awarding compensatory damages.

The D.C. District Court affirmed the arbitration award and Lessin appealed to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Lessin argued that the arbitration panel engaged in misconduct by refusing to hear pertinent evidence from one of his two designated expert witnesses. Lessin proffered two expert witnesses to show that certain notes regarding his investments stored in a Merrill Lynch computer system were fabricated after the fact. While the Court of Appeals recognized that the experts were testifying to different aspects of the computer system (one on personal observation/testing and the other on methodology), the court concluded that “[e]very failure of an arbitrator to receive relevant evidence does not constitute misconduct requiring vacatur of an arbitrator’s award.” The Court of Appeals also rejected Lessin’s claim that the panel manifestly disregarded the law because Lessin was unable to demonstrate that the panel acted beyond its authority or that the award violated an explicit public policy.

This is yet another, in a long line of cases, demonstrating the limited judicial review of arbitration awards, and the limited success that parties have in overturning arbitration awards. Lessin v. Merrill Lynch, Case No. 06-7067 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 16, 2007).

ENGLISH HIGH COURT GRANTS ANTI-SUIT INJUNCTION

by

The English High Court considered an application by Noble and Shell for an anti-suit injunction to restrain Gerling from continuing proceedings in the Vermont courts against both Noble and Shell where there had been a final arbitration award rendered in a London arbitration.

In November 2006 the Vermont court held that it had no jurisdiction to vacate the arbitration award since the seat of the award was London, but accepted subject matter jurisdiction over the claims to rescind the contracts for misrepresentation. In granting the ex parte injunction, the Court held that the misrepresentation claim fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement. The Court also held that the claims raised in the Vermont proceedings could have been raised in the London arbitration and that Gerling was estopped from raising those claims in the Vermont proceedings.

On the inter partes hearing for a final injunction, the Court held that Gerling’s conduct in attempting to nullify the effect of the arbitration award by court proceedings in Vermont against both Noble and its parent Shell, based on assertions contrary to the findings in the award, was vexatious, oppressive, an abuse of process and unconscionable. This decision confirms the jurisdiction of the English court to grant an anti-suit injunction to protect an arbitration award after the arbitration proceedings have concluded, and not only exiting arbitration proceeding prior to the delivery of an award. Noble Assurance Company and Shell Petroleum Inc. v. Gerling-Konzern General Insurance Company, 2006 EWHC 253 (February 22, 2007).