• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

  • About
    • Events
  • Articles
    • Treaty Tips
    • Special Focus
    • Market
  • Contact
  • Exclusive Content
    • Blog Staff Picks
    • Cat Risks
    • Regulatory Modernization
    • Webinars
  • Subscribe
You are here: Home / Arbitration / Court Decisions / Arbitration Process Issues / ARBITRATION BY BISHOPS NOT UNCONSCIONABLE

ARBITRATION BY BISHOPS NOT UNCONSCIONABLE

December 23, 2010 by Carlton Fields

The Catholic Bishop of Northern Alaska (CBNA) has been directed to arbitrate an insurance dispute. The CBNA filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy relief as a result of sexual abuse lawsuits against it. In the course of its bankruptcy proceeding, it sought a declaratory judgment as against its insurer, Catholic Mutual Relief Society of America, concerning the scope of coverage for the abuse claims. Catholic Mutual asserted that CBNA’s settlement of the underlying claims was without Catholic Mutual’s consent as required by the policies, and therefore voided the policies, relieving Catholic Mutual of any coverage obligation. The policy for one year contained an arbitration provision, and Catholic Mutual moved to compel arbitration of the dispute with respect to all claims potentially covered under that particular policy. CBNA resisted arbitration, claiming the arbitration provision was unconscionable, as it required submission of any dispute to Catholic Mutual’s president, and thereafter, by appeal to the chairman of Catholic Mutual’s board, who would then select a committee from amongst board members, each of whom are archbishops or bishops. The Court held this provision was not unconscionable, since the board members were as likely to align, in terms of any potential biases, with Catholic Mutual’s policyholders, who are also bishops and archbishops, as with the insurer of which they are board members. In re Catholic Bishop of Northern Alaska, No F08-00110-DMD (USDC Bankr. Alaska Dec. 13, 2010).

This post written by John Pitblado.

Filed Under: Arbitration Process Issues

Primary Sidebar

Carlton Fields Logo

A blog focused on reinsurance and arbitration law and practice by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Focused Topics

Hot Topics

Read the results of Artemis’ latest survey of reinsurance market professionals concerning the state of the market and their intentions for 2019.

Recent Updates

Market (1/27/2019)
Articles (1/2/2019)

See our advanced search tips.

Subscribe

If you would like to receive updates to Reinsurance Focus® by email, visit our Subscription page.
© 2008–2025 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · Disclaimers and Conditions of Use

Reinsurance Focus® is a registered service mark of Carlton Fields. All Rights Reserved.

Please send comments and questions to the Reinsurance Focus Administrators

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.