Court declines to intervene in umpire appointment process

A District Court has declined to intereven in the appointment of an umpire, finding that there was no impass, and that the parties should continue the process, following the process set forth in various facultative and excess of loss reinsurance agreements. Global Reinsurance Corp. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, Case No. 06-7689 (USDC S.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2006). The agreements provided that each party would appoint an arbitrator, and that the party appointed arbitrators would have 30 days to agree upon an umpire. Failing agreement, each arbitrator was to designate one umpire, with the selection being made between the two proposed persons by drawing lots. Global contended that there was an impass due to its objections to the impartiality of the umpire suggested by Lloyd's arbitrator. The Court disagreed, finding that objections to partiality were proper only after an award was entered, and that the process should continue as agreed. This opinion illustrates the importance of including, as part of the qualifications for arbitrators and umpires in an arbitration provision, requirements that prospective arbitrators and umpires not have relationships with parties and their counsel. All qualifications must be clearly stated in the agreement.