Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

You are here: Home / Archives for Arbitration / Court Decisions

Arbitration / Court Decisions

Second Circuit Affirms District Court Order Confirming Chinese Arbitration Award

by

In Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan Investment Management Partnership v. Qin, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court order granting summary judgment confirming a Chinese arbitration award totaling approximately $450 million, rejecting Respondent/Appellant’s contention that he was not provided with adequate notice of the underlying arbitration.

The underlying arbitration involved a contract dispute between the original shareholders and subsequent investors in a Chinese company that owned and operated movie theaters. The petitioners initiated the arbitration before the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC), alleging that the respondent breached a capital increase agreement. The petitioners were awarded approximately $450 million in connection with the arbitration, which was confirmed by the district court. The respondent then appealed, contending that he was not provided with adequate notice of the arbitration and was unable to participate in the selection of the arbitrators.

In affirming the district court’s order, the Second Circuit first confirmed its standard of review, noting that “we review legal issues de novo and findings of fact for clear error.” Citing the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, the court recognized that lack of proper notice of the arbitration is a defense to enforcement under Article V(1)(b) of the New York Convention. The court further noted, however, that the review of arbitral awards under the New York Convention is “very limited in order to avoid undermining the twin goals of arbitration … settling disputes efficiently and avoiding long and expensive litigation.” The court then rejected the respondent’s contention that he was not provided with adequate notice of the arbitration and was unable to participate in the selection of the arbitrators, finding that CIETAC’s efforts to provide notice to the respondent were “reasonably calculated to provide notice under the circumstances of this case,” thus satisfying due process. The court affirmed the district court’s orders granting the petitioners’ motion to confirmation the arbitration award and denying the respondent’s motion for reconsideration.

Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan Investment Management Partnership v. Qin, No. 23-0747 (2d Cir. Mar. 20, 2024).

Pennsylvania Federal Court Finds Forum Selection Clause in Services Agreement Between Insurer and Reinsurance Broker to Be Valid and Enforceable

by

In Housing & Redevelopment Insurance Exchange v. Guy Carpenter & Co., a Pennsylvania federal court considered the enforceability of a forum selection clause in a services agreement between Pennsylvania-based insurer Housing and Redevelopment Insurance Exchange (HARIE) and its reinsurance broker Guy Carpenter. In that case, the parties entered into an agreement establishing Guy Carpenter as HARIE’s reinsurance broker of record for a three-year period. The agreement included choice-of-law and forum selection clauses applying New York law and a New York forum “for the resolution of any disputes raising issues regarding the construction, meaning or enforcement of the terms of this agreement.”

HARIE did not renew the contract after that period, notifying Guy Carpenter that it would not serve as its broker of record for new reinsurance agreements. Guy Carpenter deducted $101,646.20 from a fiduciary account it held on behalf of HARIE, arguing it was entitled to that money under the terms of the agreement in the event of nonrenewal. HARIE then sued in Pennsylvania federal court to recover those funds. In the litigation, Guy Carpenter moved to dismiss or, in the alternative, to transfer, arguing (among other things) that the forum selection clause mandated that New York, not Pennsylvania, was the proper forum for the dispute.

The court’s decision focused primarily on the applicability and enforceability of the New York forum selection clause in the services agreement. In this regard, the court conducted a two-part analysis. First, the court considered whether the forum selection clause was valid and enforceable. The court agreed with Guy Carpenter and found that, while the terms of other contracts between the parties were also in issue, resolution of HARIE’s claims would require the court to construe the meaning or enforceability of the terms of the services agreement itself, such that the agreement’s New York forum selection clause governed the dispute.

Second, the court considered whether, even though the forum selection clause applied, public interest factors nonetheless militated against its enforcement in this case. In support of applying the forum selection clause, Guy Carpenter pointed out that the events of this case primarily took place in New York and that Guy Carpenter was based there. Guy Carpenter further pointed out that New York law governed the services agreement at issue. Discounting HARIE’s arguments that HARIE exclusively insures Pennsylvania insureds and that New York federal courts were slightly more congested than those in Pennsylvania, the court concluded that public interest factors weighed in favor of enforcing the New York forum selection clause.

Having found the forum selection clause valid and enforceable, and that public interest factors weighed in favor of its enforcement in this case, the court granted Guy Carpenter’s motion to the extent it sought transfer of the case to federal court in the Southern District of New York.

Housing & Redevelopment Insurance Exchange v. Guy Carpenter & Co., No. 3:23-cv-00996 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 25, 2024).

District Court Grants Motions to Dismiss Claims Brought by Reinsurer

by

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas recently dismissed certain claims brought by a reinsurer related to its efforts to audit an insurer’s broker.

Antares Reinsurance Co. reinsured United Specialty Insurance Co. United Specialty contracted with National Transportation Associates (NTA) to sell United Specialty policies on commission. Antares sought to audit NTA because it suspected it of fraud. A disagreement concerning the terms of the audit ensued, and Antares filed suit against several defendants seeking specific performance of a contractual provision allowing Antares to inspect NTA’s books, asserting various claims, including breach of contract and fraud/fraudulent misrepresentation, and requesting declaratory relief articulating Antares’ rights regarding inspecting NTA’s books.

The district court dismissed Antares’ claims. It found the specific performance claim moot because the defendants “permitted inspection of the relevant books and records” and that “additional” demands for inspection that the defendants had refused were “non-contractual.” The court held that the fraud claims were barred by the economic loss rule, which provides that “malfeasance doesn’t give rise to a fraud claim unless it resulted in damages beyond those recoverable for the contractual breach itself.” The fraud claims, the court held, “resulted in harms indistinguishable from breach of the underlying contract.” Finally, the court held that the request for declaratory relief was duplicative of the breach of contract claims. The defendants did not move to dismiss the breach of contract claim, however, and that claim therefore survived.

Antares Reinsurance Co. v. National Transportation Associates, Inc., No. 4:23-cv-00928 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 20, 2024).

Tenth Circuit Remands Case for Arbitrability Determination, Concludes That State Court Decision Relied on by District Court No Longer Had Preclusive Effect

by

In Nu Skin Enterprises Inc. v. Raab, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals considered the preclusive effect of a state trial court decision as it related to the arbitrability of the parties’ dispute under the Federal Arbitration Act.

As the trial court relayed, the underlying dispute involved beauty products marketer Nu Skin Enterprises and several of its distributors. The distributors filed an action against Nu Skin in Washington state court alleging, among other things, violations of Washington’s consumer protection act. Nu Skin then filed a separate action in federal court in the District of Utah, seeking to compel arbitration of the parties’ dispute in Utah pursuant to identical arbitration provisions in two of the parties’ agreements.

Before the Utah district court had a chance to rule on the question of arbitrability, the Washington state court denied Nu Skin’s motion to dismiss, holding that the dispute was not subject to arbitration under the parties’ agreements. Thereafter, the district court denied Nu Skin’s motion to compel arbitration, holding that the district court was bound by the Washington state court’s earlier conclusion under the doctrine of issue preclusion. Nu Skin appealed this ruling to the Tenth Circuit.

In a procedural twist, a Washington appellate court reversed the state trial court’s decision, holding that the claims in the litigation were disputes subject to the arbitration agreements and remanding to the trial court for further proceedings, including a determination of whether the arbitration clause was unconscionable. In the related appeal that was then pending in the Tenth Circuit, both parties acknowledged that as a result of the Washington appellate court’s decision, the state trial court’s decision on arbitrability no longer had preclusive effect.

Effectively agreeing with both parties, the Tenth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision, holding that the state trial court decision on which the district court relied no longer had preclusive effect. The court then remanded the case to the district court to consider the issue of arbitrability anew, noting: “We express no view on any other issue in this case, including the possible preclusive effect of any other proceedings or decisions in the Washington courts.”

Nu Skin Enterprises Inc. v. Raab, No. 22-4068 (10th Cir. Mar. 19, 2024).

Tax Court Upholds IRS Decision That Premiums Paid to Microcaptive Insurance Companies Did Not Qualify for Tax Deductions

by

The U.S. Tax Court recently upheld a determination by the IRS that premium payments to certain microcaptives could not be deducted for tax purposes because the premium payments were not actually for “insurance.”

Dr. Sunil S. Patel, who operated an eye surgery center and two research centers, supplemented his businesses’ commercial insurance by purchasing policies from two purported microcaptive insurance companies. Dr. Patel and his wife, Dr. McAnally-Patel, claimed tax deductions for the premiums paid to those microcaptives. The IRS concluded that the premiums could not be deducted and assessed deficiencies and penalties against the Patels.

The Patels challenged the IRS’ determination, but the Tax Court upheld it. The court noted that the Tax Code “does not prohibit deductions for microcaptive insurance premiums,” but “the deductibility of insurance premiums depends on whether the premiums were truly payments for insurance.” To analyze that question, the court examined “four criteria,” whether:

(1) the insurer distributes the risk among its policy holders; (2) the arrangement is insurance in the commonly accepted sense; (3) the arrangement shifts the risk of loss to the insurer; and (4) the arrangement involves insurable risks.

The court found that the microcaptives “fail[ed] to demonstrate risk distribution.” It found a “circular flow of funds,” “no evidence of any arm’s-length negotiations in determining the premiums paid,” and no evidence that the premium “was actuarially determined.”

It also concluded that, “aside from [some] organizational formalities,” the microcaptives “were not operated as insurance companies” in the commonly accepted sense. They “had no employees of their own that performed services” and a separate entity “orchestrated [their] activities so that they appeared to be engaged in the business of issuing insurance contracts.”

The court therefore declined even to consider “whether [the microcaptives’] transactions involved insurance risk or risk shifting.” The Tax Court sustained the IRS’ conclusion that the Patels could not deduct the premiums paid to the microcaptives.

Patel v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Nos. 24344-17, 11352-18, 25268-18 (U.S.T.C. Mar. 26, 2024).