Guy Carpenter provided reinsurance intermediary and placement services for General Fire & Casualty. When a dispute arose as to those services, General Fire and its parent holding company sued Guy Carpenter. Guy Carpenter moved for summary judgment as to the claims of the parent, contending that it did not have a relationship with the parent. The USDC for Idaho denied the motion, finding that disputed issues of material fact existed with respect to such claims. General Fire & Casualty Co. v. Guy Carpenter & Co., Case No. 05-251 (USDC Idaho Nov. 7, 2006).
Arbitration / Court Decisions
UK Court denies claim over implementation of EEC Insurance Directive
The UK Commercial Court, Queen's Bench Division, has entered an extensive opinion (with an accompanying Appendix), denying claims asserted by various Names against Her Majesty's Treasury, which alleged that the Names had suffered losses at Lloyd's due to the government’s failure appropriately to implement an EEC Insurance Directive (Directive 73/239/EEC). The Names contended that as a result of the failures in the implementation process, the “true IBNR” for US asbestos-related risks were not disclosed, resulting in the Names participating in the reinsurance of such risks, when they would not have done so had they known the “true IBNR” for such risks. Poole v. Her Majesty’s Treasury, [2006] EWHC 2731 (Comm.) (Nov. 8, 2006). The Court denied the claims on two bases: (1) the Insurance Directive did not grant any relevant rights to the Names; and (2) the claims were time barred.
Parties litigate issues relating to London arbitration award in US Court
Noble Assurance Company insured its parent, Shell Petroleum, Inc., and reinsured the risks with Gerling-Konzern General Insurance Co – UK. When a dispute arose over the reinsurance, the parties arbitrated the dispute in London. The Panel ruled in Nobel's favor, and Gerling then filed suit in US District Court in Vermont against Noble and Shell, seeking rescission of the reinsurance agreement, vacature of the London arbitration award on the basis that it violated public policy and was issued in manifest disregard of the law and declarations that various contracts were void. In a preliminary ruling, the District Court permitted jurisdictional discovery as to the claim against Shell, denied Gerling's motion for summary judgment and granted Noble's motion to dismiss in part. The fundamental issue of whether the US court action could attack the London arbitration award was not presented in these motions. Gerling-Konzern General Ins. Co – UK v. Noble Assurance Co., Case No. 06-76 (D. Vt. Nov. 1, 2006). It will be interesting to follow this action, since it appears to be, at least in significant part, a collateral attack on the London arbitration award.
Court denies multiple challenges to NASD arbitration award
A District Court has denied a motion to vacate an arbitration award in a securities matter entered by an NASD panel, which sought vacation on the following grounds: (1) the award was irrational, in light of the evidence presented; (2) the Panel improperly refused to hear the rebuttal testimony of an expert; and (3) one of the arbitrators exhibited evident partiality. The Court concluded that the “irrationality” argument amounted to nothing more than a disagreement with the arbitrators' decision, that the evidence ruling was within the discretion of the Panel and that there was insufficient evidence of evident partiality. The court noted that “[a]s long as there is some basis for the arbitrators' decision, no matter how 'slender' that basis may be, the award must be confirmed.” Edward Mellon Trust v. UBS Painewebber, Inc., Case No. 06-0184 (USDC W.D. Pa. Nov. 6, 2006).
Court of Appeal holds that California Court had personal jurisdiction over London insurance broker
A California Court of Appeals, reversing a lower court's decision, has held that the state court could exercise personal jurisdiction over Sedgwick Group Ltd., an English insurance broker which had provided brokerage services for a California excess and surplus lines insurance broker for at least 50 years. The Court found that Sedgwick had “enjoyed decades of profit as a result of purposeful and deliberate business practices aimed at California residents.” In finding the exercise of personal jurisdiction over Sedgwick proper, the Court cited, as being of particular relevance, a Ninth Circuit case that dealt with personal jurisdiction over a London-based insurance broker. Harris Rutsky & Co. Ins. Serv., Inc. v. Bell & Clements, 328 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2003). Swett & Crawford v. Sedgwick Group Ltd., Case No. B183940 (Cal.Ct.App. Oct. 11, 2006).