• 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 / ROUNDUP OF FEDERAL DECISIONS ON MOTIONS TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

ROUNDUP OF FEDERAL DECISIONS ON MOTIONS TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

September 7, 2012 by Carlton Fields

Following is a summary of court decisions, some compelled, others denying, arbitration:

Authenment, III v. Ingram Barge Co., Case No. 10-2107 (USDC E.D. La. July 13, 2012) (granting West of England Shipowner’s Mutual’s motion to stay pending arbitration in a case initially brought against West of England’s insured, notwithstanding that plaintiff was non-signatory to arbitration agreement; holding that Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards supersedes Louisiana’s statute prohibiting arbitration agreements in insurance contracts).

ISC Holding AG v. Nobel Biocare Finance AG, No. 11-239 (2d Cir. July 25, 2012) (affirming order dismissing with prejudice petition to compel arbitration and vacating petitioner’s notice of voluntary dismissal; holding that Rule Federal Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) does not apply in the context of petitions to compel arbitration).

Wooten v. Fisher Invest., Inc., No. 11-2476 (8th Cir. July 26, 2012) (affirming that district court properly dismissed without prejudice plaintiff’s state and federal statutory claims because they were subject to an ongoing arbitration that was required to be completed before remedies could be pursued in federal court).

Gove v. Career Sys. Dev’l Corp., No. 11-2468 (1st Cir. July 17, 2012) (affirming that employment discrimination claims brought by applicant against potential employer were not subject to compulsory arbitration because arbitration agreement was ambiguous as to whether claims brought by applicants that were not hired were subject to arbitration provision).

Union Elec. Co. v. Aegis Energy Syndicate 1225, Case No. 4:12CV87 (USDC E.D. Mo. Aug. 23, 2012) (denying insurer’s motion to compel arbitration; holding that Missouri choice of law and forum selection clause in policy endorsement prevails over alternative resolution provision in policy).

This post written by Ben Seessel.

See our disclaimer.

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.