Week's Best Posts

AFTER AMEX, MASSACHUSETTS SUPREME COURT RECONSIDERS PRIOR DECISION FINDING CLASS WAIVER UNENFORCEABLE ON COST-PROHIBITIVE GROUNDS

August 13, 2013 by Carlton Fields

On July 2, 2013, we reported on Feeney v. Dell Inc., which was issued eight days before the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, and appeared to reach a result at odds with that decision. Specifically, while Amex held that individual arbitration could be compelled under the FAA based on a class waiver contract provision, notwithstanding that the cost of arbitration exceeded the potential recovery, Feeney had held that U.S. Supreme Court precedent precluded a class waiver under those circumstances. On August 1, 2013, the Feeney court granted a petition for rehearing, changing the result in its prior opinion, and reversing the lower court’s denial of a motion to confirm the underlying arbitration award, holding that “following Amex, our analysis in Feeney II no longer comports with the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the FAA.” Feeney v. Dell Inc., Case No. SJC-11133 (Mass. August 1, 2013).

This post written by Michael Wolgin.

See our disclaimer.

DISTRICT COURT TRANSFERS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION INVOLVING REINSURANCE AGREEMENT

August 12, 2013 by Carlton Fields

In a dispute between an insurance company and a reinsurance company over sums paid pursuant to a reinsurance agreement, the Southern District of New York granted defendant’s motion to transfer to the Northern District of New York (“NDNY”) where a similar dispute involving the same parties, but a different reinsurance agreement, is pending. The court determined that transfer was appropriate because the only witnesses reside in the NDNY, the relevant documents exist in defendant’s headquarters located in the NDNY, and plaintiff’s choice of forum is entitled to little deference since plaintiff is located in New Jersey, not in the forum. The fact that the sister case pending in the NDNY involves common witnesses and documents, and therefore might generate duplicative discovery, also weighed in favor of transfer. Munich Reinsurance America, Inc. v. Utica Mutual Insurance Company, Case No. 13-cv-238 (USCD S.D.N.Y. June 18, 2013).

This post written by Abigail Kortz.

See our disclaimer.

WEST VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT REVERSES “UNCONSCIONABILITY” HOLDINGS, COMPELS ARBITRATION

August 6, 2013 by Carlton Fields

In a consolidated appeal of two cases involving Credit Acceptance Corporation (“CAC”), the West Virginia Supreme Court reversed two trial court decisions denying motions to compel arbitration, and ordered both cases to proceed to arbitration. The trial court had found that the arbitral forums named in the agreements were unavailable, and that the agreements were unconscionable inasmuch as they contained a waiver of the right to a jury trial. It denied CAC’s motions to compel arbitration on those bases in both cases. The West Virginia Supreme Court reversed, finding that (1) while one of the arbitral forums mentioned in the agreement – the National Arbitration Forum – was no longer available for consumer arbitrations, the other entity mentioned – the American Arbitration Association – remained available; and (2) the fact that an arbitration agreement requires an explicit waiver of the right to a jury trial does not render it unconscionable or unenforceable. The Court remanded with directions to the trial court to compel arbitration. Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Front, No. 12-0545 (W.V. June 19, 2013).

This post written by John Pitblado.

See our disclaimer.

DISPUTE IN ADMINISTRATION OF CATASTROPHE BOND RESULTS IN LAWSUIT

August 5, 2013 by Carlton Fields

A lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York concerning the administration of the $100 million Mariah Re Ltd. cat bond, which covers severe weather event risks ceded to Mariah Re by American Family Mutual Insurance Company, with an attachment point of $825 million. The Complaint focuses on the modeling and reporting of a particular storm by ISO Services, Inc,. (d/b/a/ Property Claim Service (“PCS”)) and AIR Worldwide Corp. (“AIR”). Payments under the cat bond are based upon estimated loss modeling by PCS, rather than being indemnity based. The Complaint alleges that PCS impropery issued an amended bulletin reporting on the losses resulting from the storm after it had issued its “final report” concerning the storm, and that PCS improperly backdated the replacement report so that it apepared to have been issued prior to the date of its “final report.” It is alleged that as a result of the replacement report, AIR’s calculation of the losses purportedly chargeable to Mariah Re resulting from the storm increased from $62.2 million to approximately $180.1 million. Apparently, American Family withdrew the entire $100 million limit of the cat bond from the cat bond’s reinsurance trust, approximately $37.8 million more than what it is alleged should have been withdrawn.

Disputes over the administration cat bonds are rare. One source has suggested that this is the first lawsuit concerning the administration of cat bonds. This lawsuit raises the interesting question of whether the use of non-indemnity payment triggers in cat bonds exposes ceding insurers to potential litigation risks which an indemnity payment trigger would avoid.

This post written by Rollie Goss.

See our disclaimer.

COURT HOLDS THAT PRECLUSIVE EFFECT OF PRIOR ARBITRATION SHOULD BE DECIDED BY ARBITRATOR

July 30, 2013 by Carlton Fields

National Casualty, Wausau and Swiss Re reinsured OneBeacon under a multiple line excess cover program. When disputes arose OneBeacon arbitrated with Swiss Re, and lost. OneBeacon then demanded arbitration with National Casualty and Wausau with respect to the same reinsurance program, but that proceeding broke down over disputes concerning the selection of an umpire to complete a three arbitrator panel. National Casualty and Wausau then filed a lawsuit against OneBeacon, seeking a declaration that the prior arbitration award and the doctrine of collateral estoppel barred OneBeacon’s second arbitration, and seeking the court’s assistance in the appointment of the umpire. The court granted OneBeacon’s motion to dismiss the preclusion claim on the basis that the preclusive effect of a prior arbitration in a subsequent arbitration should be decided by the arbitrator and not by the court.

The reinsurers had put forth a senior official of Swiss Re as their umpire candidate, to which OneBeacon objected, on the basis that the candidate was not impartial and was not qualified to serve. The court found OneBeacon’s challenge to the as yet unselected umpire candidate premature under the terms of the Federal Arbitration Act, which provides that challenges to arbitrators should be entertained by courts only after the issuance of an arbitration award. National Cas. Co. v. OneBeacon American Ins. Co., Case No. 12-11874 (USDC D. Mass. July 1, 2013).

This post written by Brian Perryman.

See our disclaimer.