LDG Re reinsured workers' compensation and employers' liability risks retained by Legion Insurance and a related company under two quota share reinsurance agreements. LDG Re booked the reinsurance into a pool facility in which a number of companies participated, including Chartwell Reinsurance (which was later purchased by Trenwick America Reinsurance). When LDG failed to make timely payments under the quota share agreements, Legion demanded arbitration. A settlement was reached. When LDG allegedly failed to make payments required by the settlement agreement, Legion sought to reactivate the arbitration. LDG objected, contending that the dispute was not arbitrable and that the pool members were entitled to set off other debts owed to them by Legion. The panel entered an award purporting to enforce the settlement agreement, requiring a payment by LDG of over $5 million, not mentioning the set off request. Legion moved to confirm the award, and Trenwick moved to intervene in both the District Court action and in Legion's liquidation proceeding in Pennsylvania state court, seeking to assert a set off. In a Memorandum Opinion, followed by an Order and Judgment, the District Court confirmed the arbitration award, but stayed execution pending the submission by Legion or Trenwick of a motion in the liquidation proceeding seeking a ruling as to whether the claimed set off should be allowed. Koken v. LDG Re Corp., Case No. 06-81 (USDC ED Pa. Dec. 29, 2006).
Arbitration / Court Decisions
Courts continue confirmation of arbitration awards
Two recent rulings addressed the confirmation of arbitration awards:
- The US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the confirmation of an arbitration award in a non-insurance case, rejecting a contention that the award construed a contract in such a way that it violated a First Circuit standard that prohibits the interpretation of contracts “in a way that cannot possibly be described as plausible or rational.” Vital Basics Inc. v. Vertrue Inc., Case No. 05-2741 (1st Cir. Dec. 29, 2006).
- A New York state court ruled that an arbitration award should be confirmed under New York law, since it was not arbitrary, capricious, or irrational, and the losing party had failed to prove its contention that the arbitrator had improperly prejudiced its rights and the integrity of the arbitral process due to purported ex parte contacts with opposing counsel. Mounier v. American Transit Ins. Co., Case No. 2005-03804 (NY Sup.Ct. App.Div. Jan. 9, 2007).
Court denies request to overrule privilege claim in connection with alleged fraud
A US District Court has denied a motion to overrule a Magistrate Judge's ruling, which denied a motion to overrule a claim of attorney-client privilege, in a case alleging fraud in a rent-a-captive insurance program involving Legion Insurance, which is in liquidation. The motion sought discovery from an attorney who allegedly participated in the alleged fraud. The circumstamces of the brief rulings are set out in the objections to the Magistrate Judge's ruling. Koken v. American Patriot Ins. Agency, Inc., Case No. 05-1049 (USDC ND Ill. Dec. 4, 2006).
Court compels arbitration under international arbitration convention
A US District Court has held that arbitration should be compelled under the Convnetion on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of a dispute between a Georga-based insured and a British insurer. The insurance hedged the insured's participation as an investor in a secondary market for life insurance policies. The Court found that although Georgia law invalidated arbitration agreements in insurance policies, and Georgia law applied to the interpretation of the arbitration agreement, the international convention superceded the McCarran-Ferguson Act, requiring arbitration despite Georgia law's hostility to such arbitration agreements. Goshawk Dedicated Limited v. Portsmouth Settlement Co., Case No. 06-274 (USDC ND Ga. Dec. 18, 2006).
Court denies late attempt to impose offset to arbitration award
A California insurance agent arbitrated disputes with an insurance agency to which he had sold his business. The contract provided that any arbitration award would be subject to offsets. An offset claim was presented to the arbitrator, but the award made no mention of the offset request. After the confirmation of the award, the losing party sought to have the court impose the offset. A California Court of Appeal affirmed a ruling that the request was too late, that the party should have applied to the arbitrator to correct the award to specifically address the offset issue pursuant to a California statute, or should have raised the issue during confirmation proceedings. The Court specifically found that the strategy did not constitute an error of counsel for which the party should be provided relief. Kelly v. RMI Ins. Services, Inc., Case No. H030047 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 19, 2006).