The UK Court of Appeal has held that a reinsurance broker was not entitled to receive brokerage on both a deposit premium and on the total adjusted premium (without deduction of the deposit premium). This was a question of the interpretation of four excess of loss reinsurance contracts and seven burning cost contracts. Absalom v. TCRU Ltd., [2005] EWCA Civ 1586 (December 19, 2005).
Arbitration / Court Decisions
Arbitration award confirmed over objection of regulator
In Koken v. Cologne Reinsurance (Barbados) Ltd., Case No. 98-0678 (USDC M.D. Pa. Aug. 23, 2006), a District Court reaffirmed its earlier decision that an arbitration provision was binding upon the Insurance Commissioner of Pennsylvania, acting as the liquidator of American Integrity Insurance Company, rejecting an argument based upon the McCarran-Ferguson Act. The Court declined to vacate the majority of the award under the manifest disregard of law standard, holding that “an erroneous interpretation by the arbitration panel does not warrant a finding of manifest disregard,” but vacated one paragraph of the award as being in manifest disregard of law, becuase it continued an insurance coverage past the time provided for by an unambiguous Pennsylvania statute.
District Court refuses to vacate arbitration award
In Hilb Rogal & Hobbs Co. v. Golub, Case No. 05-574 (USDC E.D. Va. Aug. 18, 2006), a non-insurance case, a District Court refused to vacate an arbitration award under the manifest disregard of law standard, holding that “[t]he mere fact that an arbitration panel reached a legal conclusion in error is not sufficient for vacatur.”
Vacation of arbitration awards due to failure to follow arbitration agreement
Two opinions recently have addressed the issue of whether an arbitration award should be vacated when the arbitrators fail to follow the arbitration agreement.
- In Martin v. Wells Fargo Financial, Inc., 2006 WL 2466945, Case No. 05-00003 (9th Cir. Aug. 25, 2006), the Court of Appeals affirmed a District Court decision vacating an arbitration award “because the underlying arbitrations were not conducted in accordance with the terms of the parties' arbitration agreement.” This unreported opinion is not available on Pacer, and it does not reveal what the Court of Appeals viewed as the deficiencies in the arbitration.
- In Allstate Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, 2006 WL 2473419 (Cal.Ct.App. Aug. 29, 2006), the Court reversed the vacation of an award on the basis that the panel rendered a “reasoned” award when the arbitration agreement provided that the award should not state reasons. Instead of vacating the award, the Court directed that the “reasons” be stricken from the confirmed award as surplusage.
Massachusetts court holds that AAA arbitrators may impose sanctions for discovery abuse
In a non-insurance matter, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has held that a panel of arbitrators convened under the rules of the American Arbitration Association had authority to impose monetary sanctions for discovery abuse, finding that they had the inherent authority to impose monetary sanctions and enter other orders relating to noncompliance with appropriate discovery orders, in order to facilitate their adjudication of claims effectively, in the manner contemplated by the arbitration process. Superadio Limited Partnership v. Winstar Radio Productions, LLC, 446 Mass. 330, 844 N.E.2d 246 (Mass. 2006).