In a non-insurance matter, a District Court denied a motion to vacate an arbitration award under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. Among the grounds alleged for vacating the award was an undisclosed “relationship” between two of the three arbitrators. HSN Capital LLC v. Productora Y Comercializador de Television, S.A., Case No. 05-1769 (M.D. Fla. July 5, 2006). This case contains a good statement of the standards for vacating an arbitration award under the Foreign Arbitral Awards Convention.
Arbitration / Court Decisions
Court of Appeals defers issues of arbitration procedure to arbitrators
In an unreported opinion, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the action of a District Court that declined to become involved in how an arbitration would be conducted, including whether consolidating multiple arbitrations was appropriate. The Court followed Supreme Court precedent in holding that the courts should only decide “gateway issues” such as whether there was a valid agreement to arbitrate, leaving issues relating to arbitration procedure to the arbitrators. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds v. Cravens Dargan & Co., 2006 WL 2337959, Case No. 05-56154 (9th Cir. Aug. 14, 2006).
Insured may not maintain action against reinsurer
A pro se plaintiff had insurance with Chubb Insurance Group, which was reinsured by GE Employers Reinsurance. After her RICO action against Chubb was dismissed, she filed a RICO action against GE. The District Court dismissed the action, based in part on the general rule that an insured can not maintain an action directly against a reinsurer. Kuhn v. Kehrwald, Case No. 05-1228 (E.D. Wis. Aug. 4, 2006). The opinion describes the Plaintiff's submissions as “incoherent and filled with invective ….” Although she alleged that her business suffered a “mysterious loss of funds,” she was convicted of stealing money from the business and its clients.
Arbitration award vacated due to lack of disclosure by arbitrator
In a non-reinsurance matter involving commerce in Turkey, a District Court has vacated an arbitration award due to a failure by the panel chair to disclose that an affiliate of the chair's employer had an ongoing business relationship with the prospective purchaser of a party to the arbitration. This opinion is notable due to the high standard of disclosure imposed by the Court, which was based upon language in the agreement signed by the parties, the American Arbitration Association's Code of Ethics and the International Bar Association's Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest. The panel chair had contended that the total revenue involved in the relationship was an imperceptible fraction of this employer's revenue. Applied Industrial Materials Corp. v. Ovalar Makine Ticaret Ve Sanayi, A.S., Case No. 05-10540 (U.S.N.Y. June 28, 2006).
Motion to vacate arbitration award denied due to lack of record
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in an unpublished opinion involving a non-insurance matter, affirmed the denial of a motion to vacate an arbitration award, which contended that the arbitrators had exhibited evident partiality or corruption. However, the Court could not evaluate this claim on its merits because there was no transcript of the arbitration proceeding available. Henry v. Standard Automation & Control, 2006 WL 2233390, Case No. 04-16588 (9th Cir. August 24, 2006). Unless whatever is the subject of post-hearing motions is completely encompassed within written submissions to a panel, which will be an atypical occurrence, it is likely that there will be an inadequate record for judicial review if the arbitration hearing is not transcribed. Electing not to have a court reporter attend an arbitration hearing therefore will severely limit a party's post-hearing options, making an arbitration award effectively not subject to even the limited “judicial review” provided for in the Federal Arbitration Act.