Week's Best Posts

TEXAS SUPREME COURT VACATES $26 MILLION ARBITRATION AWARD AND REVERSES COURT OF APPEAL’S DECISION IMPOSING REQUIREMENT FOR SELECTION OF ARBITRATORS

July 29, 2014 by Carlton Fields

Nearly ten years after arbitration proceedings commenced involving a claim arising from the purchase and sale of various insurance companies, the Texas Supreme Court vacated the $26 million arbitration award entered against Americo Life, Inc. et. al. (“Americo”) in favor of Robert L. Myer and Strider Marketing Group, Inc. (“Myer”) and reversed the Court of Appeal’s judgment, finding that the arbitration panel exceeded its authority because the panel was formed contrary to the express terms of the arbitration agreement. The arbitration clause contained in the agreement between Americo and Myers provided for a tripartite arbitration, where each party appointed an arbitrator and the two arbitrators would select a third. Each arbitrator was to be a “knowledgeable, independent business person or professional.” The arbitration clause also provided that the arbitration proceedings “shall be conducted in accordance with the commercial arbitration rules of the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”). At the time the agreement was executed, AAA rules did not require arbitrator impartiality, but by the time the arbitration was invoked, AAA rules required by default that any arbitrator shall be “impartial and independent…”

The issue in this case centered around the AAA striking the arbitrator selected by Americo on the basis the arbitrator was not impartial. America moved to vacate the award and argued that in disqualifying the arbitrator, the AAA failed to follow the arbitrator-selection process specified in the parties’ agreement because the parties never agreed that the arbitrators must be “impartial.” The Texas Supreme Court agreed.

First, the Texas Supreme Court rejected Myer’s argument that the term “independent”, which was contained in the parties’ agreement, was the same as the term “impartial.” The Court then turned to the question of whether the incorporation by reference of the AAA Rules also incorporated the impartiality requirement even though the requirement did not exist at the time the agreement was signed. The Americo Court held the impartiality requirement was not incorporated because it conflicted with the terms of the parties’ agreement. The parties agreed to arbitrators who were “knowledgeable” and “independent,” but not impartial. Thus, because the AAA impartiality rules conflicted with the parties’ agreement, the agreement controls over the AAA rules. Therefore, the AAA should not have disqualified Americo’s arbitrator on the grounds of impartiality and the arbitration panel exceeded its authority, requiring that the award be vacated. Americo Life, Inc. v. Myer, No. 12-0739 (Texas June 20, 2014).

This post written by Leonor Lagomasino.

See our disclaimer.

FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT UPHOLDS FOREIGN REINSURER’S RIGHT TO REMOVE ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT

July 28, 2014 by Carlton Fields

The Court for the Middle District of Louisiana upheld a magistrate’s ruling denying a motion to remand filed by the Louisiana Commerce and Trade Association of Self Insurer’s Fund (“LCTA”), holding that the defendant foreign reinsurers (“Reinsurers”) properly removed the state court action under the Convention of the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (“New York Convention”) which Congress implemented under the Convention Act, 9 U.S.C. §§201-208. In so holding, the Court first found it had subject matter jurisdiction under the Convention Act and rejected LTCA’s argument that, because the issue of arbitrability was not raised below, the state court action did not “relate to” an arbitration as required by the New York Convention. Noting the extraordinary breadth of the New York Convention, the Court found that because LTCA’s claim against the Reinsurers arose under the Reinsurance Contract which included an arbitration clause, the state court action thus related to the arbitration clause. The Court also noted that a party is not required to first move to compel arbitration before it is permitted to remove the action and, in any case, the Reinsurers in this case had advised the state court that they intended to remove the action.

The Court then turned to LTCA’s contractual argument that the Reinsurers waived their right to remove under the Service-of-Suit Clause in the Reinsurance Contract. In this case, the Service-of-Suit clause provided that the Reinsurers agreed to submit to the jurisdiction of a court of competent jurisdiction within the United States in the event they failed to pay any amount claimed under the Reinsurance Contract. The Service-of-Suit Clause, however, further provided that nothing contained in that provision constituted a waiver of the Reinsurer’s right to remove the action to a United States District Court. The Court found that this provision was not an explicit, clear, and unequivocal waiver of the right to remove, as required under applicable law, and further found it expressly and sufficiently reserved the Reinsurer’s right to removal. Louisiana Commerce and Trade Association Self-Insurers Fund v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London Subscribing to Contract Number A1430B600/A2430B600, No 13-700-JJB-RLB (M.D. La. July 15, 2014), affirming and adopting Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations dated May 6, 2014.

This post written by Leonor Lagomasino.

See our disclaimer.

COURT REFUSES TO COMPEL NONSIGNATORY TO JOIN REINSURANCE ARBITRATION

July 22, 2014 by Carlton Fields

On April 8, 2014, we reported on National Indemnity Company’s (“NICO”) attempt in a Nebraska federal district court to enjoin Transatlantic Reinsurance Company from commencing arbitration against NICO in Chicago and New York under various reinsurance agreements. Both arbitrations involved asbestos liability transferred to NICO, and separately reinsured by Transatlantic Re. The Nebraska court elected not to adjudicate NICO’s injunction claim, but instead decided to sever it into two, and transfer the resulting two claims to Illinois and New York.

The Illinois district court recently refused to compel arbitration against NICO, finding that NICO was a not a signatory to the underlying reinsurance agreement containing the arbitration agreement between Transatlantic Re and the cedent, Continental Insurance Company. The court also found that the language of the arbitration clause was not broad enough to include nonsignatories, and further found that NICO, by its conduct, never assumed the obligation to arbitrate. The court also interpreted the agreements between Continental and NICO and determined that the Transatlantic Re’s arbitration provisions were never incorporated in those agreements by reference. Finally, the court held that NICO was not estopped from disclaiming an obligation to arbitrate because it never asserted any rights of its own for its direct benefit under Transatlantic Re’s reinsurance agreement, notwithstanding the fact that NICO did derive certain indirect benefits. Transatlantic Reinsurance Co. v. National Indemnity Co., Case No. 1:14-cv-01535 (USDC N.D. Ill. June 24, 2014).

This post written by Michael Wolgin.

See our disclaimer.

U.K. COURT DISMISSES RETROCESSIONAIRE’S DEFENSE IN “FOLLOW THE SETTLEMENTS” DISPUTE

July 21, 2014 by Carlton Fields

A British retrocessionaire sued its retroceding reinsurer in a coverage dispute regarding the “follow the settlements” doctrine. The primary insurer at issue, ACE INA Overseas Insurance Company, insured Tesco, which operated 212 commercial premises in Thailand that were destroyed in a flood in late 2011. The loss was initially estimated by adjusters to result in £90-100 million ultimate loss payout. Tesco initially demanded and made claim for £125,300,000 in losses. After interposing coverage defenses, ACE ultimately settled the claim for £82,400,000.

Tokio Marine Europe Insurance participated in an excess of loss reinsurance treaty that was triggered by the claim, and had retroceded a portion of that risk to Novae Corporate Underwriting, Ltd. Novae challenged whether it was bound by the “follow the settlements” clause, which typically precludes challenges to the cedent’s settlement on reasonableness grounds. It refused Tokio’s claim and Tokio brought suit. Novae interposed a legal defense that the “follow the settlements” clause is understood to import both a “reasonableness” of the settlement component, and a “professionalism” in adjusting component. Novae’s defense was based on the latter. It alleged ACE had failed to have the underlying coverage issues properly vetted under Thai law. Tokio moved for summary judgment on the defense. The Court granted Tokio’s motion, finding that “notwithstanding that ACE did not further investigate the coverage afforded by the Local Policy, including the scope for deductibles, and did not delve more deeply into the question whether the high rain fall was the sole source or original cause of Tesco’s loss before concluding the settlement, Novae’s defence that ACE, in failing to take these steps, failed to act properly or in a businesslike manner has no prospect of success.” Tokio Marine Europe Insurance Ltd v. Novae Corporate Underwriting Ltd., [2014] EWHC 2105 (U.K..High Ct. Justice, Comm. Div., July 2, 2014)

This post written by John Pitblado.

See our disclaimer.

COURT DENIES RENEWED ATTEMPT TO DISMISS DEFENSES IN REINSURANCE DISPUTE ASSOCIATED WITH ASBESTOS-RELATED LIABILITIES

July 15, 2014 by Carlton Fields

In this case, plaintiffs sought leave to renew their motion to dismiss certain retention-related and assignment affirmative defenses based on provisions of certain Loss Portfolio Transfer (LPT) agreements, and to re-argue the motion to dismiss based on their contention that the court: (1) overlooked arguments raised by the parties; (2) determined issues sua sponte without factual and legal support; and (3) misapplied precedent to the undisputed facts at issue. The court denied plaintiffs’ motions. The court determined that plaintiffs had failed to refute defendant’s assertion that the LPT may have transferred all of the plaintiffs’ relevant interests and constituted an impermissible assignment because plaintiffs failed to provide documentation showing that the cap in the LPT agreements could be exceeded. The court also decided that plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of showing that the defendant’s retention defenses were without merit as a matter of law. The court determined that the LPT did not satisfy the definition of treaty insurance because it was not obtained in advance of coverage. Furthermore, the court determined that the parties’ statements concerning the extent of plaintiffs’ assignment of their interests in the insurance certificates in question were not fatal to defendant’s assignment defenses as a whole. Granite State Ins. Co. v. Transatlantic Reinsurance Co., Index No. 652506/2012 (Sup. Ct of N.Y., County of N.Y. June 18, 2014).

This post written by Kelly A. Cruz-Brown.

See our disclaimer.