A District Court has declined to intereven in the appointment of an umpire, finding that there was no impass, and that the parties should continue the process, following the process set forth in various facultative and excess of loss reinsurance agreements. Global Reinsurance Corp. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, Case No. 06-7689 (USDC S.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2006). The agreements provided that each party would appoint an arbitrator, and that the party appointed arbitrators would have 30 days to agree upon an umpire. Failing agreement, each arbitrator was to designate one umpire, with the selection being made between the two proposed persons by drawing lots. Global contended that there was an impass due to its objections to the impartiality of the umpire suggested by Lloyd's arbitrator. The Court disagreed, finding that objections to partiality were proper only after an award was entered, and that the process should continue as agreed. This opinion illustrates the importance of including, as part of the qualifications for arbitrators and umpires in an arbitration provision, requirements that prospective arbitrators and umpires not have relationships with parties and their counsel. All qualifications must be clearly stated in the agreement.
Arbitration / Court Decisions
Fifth Circuit elaborates upon manifest disregard of law standard
Quoting from one of its own 2004 opinions, the Fifth Circuit has elaborated upon the standard for finding that an arbitration award is in manifest disregard of law, holding that such a finding requires proof of two elements: (1) that the legal error must have been obvious and capable of being readily and instantly perceived by the average person qualified to serve as an arbitrator; and (2) that the award results in a significant injustice. The first element includes a need to demonstrate that the arbitrator appreciated the existence of a clearly governing principle of law, but decided to ignore or pay no attention to such principle. The arbitration hearing at issue was not reported. The Court concluded that “[h]aving failed to secure a record of the arbitration proceedings, and without any evidence that the arbitral panel was aware of the Fifth Circuit standard [for awarding attorneys' fees], OneBeacon cannot make this showing, so its claim that the award was in 'manifest disregard' of the law fails ….” OneBeacon America Ins. Co. v. Turner, Case No. 06-20302 (5th Cir. Oct. 30, 2006).
UK Court of Appeal discusses appeal process in context of reinsurance arbitration
The UK Court of Appeals has issued an opinion that discusses the appeal process in the UK, in the context of the appeal of an arbitration award in a reinsurance dispute. The reinsurance is irrelevant to this decision, which is interesting if one wishes to see how the UK appeal process works. CGU International Ins. PLC v. AstraZeneca Ins. Co., [2006] EWCA Civ 1340 (Oct. 16, 2006).
Court refuses to imply follow the fortunes doctrine into reinsurance agreements
In a matter involving the reinsurance of asbestos-related risks, a District Court has followed what it considered to be both the majority rule, and the better reasoned path, declining to imply the follow the fortunes doctrine into reinsurance agreements, where the facultative reinsurance agreements did not contain such a provision. The Court then denied summary judgment to the reinsured, finding that there were disputed issues of material fact as to whether certain excess insurance had been exhausted, a requirement for the applicability of the reinsurance, and whether an exclusion applied. The American Ins. Co. v. American Re-Ins. Co., Case No. 05-01218 (USDC N.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2006). Shortly after this opinion was entered, the parties notified the Court that they had reached a settlement of their disputes.
Court interprets policy in direct action against reinsurer
A truck leased from Ryder TRS was involved in an accident, and Frontier Insurance Company provided coverage for the truck. After Frontier was declared insolvent, a party to the accident pursued claims under the policy against Clarendon Insurance Company, which had provided reinsurance to Frontier. The New Hampshire Supreme Court upheld an interpretation of the insurance policy proposed by Clarendon, which limited Clarendon's liability. This opinion discusses some of the general principles of policy interpretation. Warner v. Clarendon Ins. Co., Case No. 2005-415 (N.H. Nov. 2, 2006).