• 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 / COURT DENIES MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION FINDING AMBIGUITY AS TO WHETHER ARBITRATION WAS EXCLUSIVE REMEDY

COURT DENIES MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION FINDING AMBIGUITY AS TO WHETHER ARBITRATION WAS EXCLUSIVE REMEDY

May 12, 2009 by Carlton Fields

On April 14, 2009, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denied Consolidated Services Group’s motion to compel arbitration under the terms of its agreement with plaintiff, Creative Marketing Alliance. The Court determined that although the contract contained an arbitration clause, the agreement was ambiguous as to whether arbitration was the exclusive remedy for all disputes. The Court noted that the agreement acknowledged the possibility of litigation by vesting the District of New Jersey with “sole and exclusive jurisdiction to resolve and interpretation, construction, breach, dispute or other controversy arising” out of the agreement. The arbitration provision failed to state “in clear and unmistakable terms” that the parties elected arbitration for all disputes and waived their right to litigation. Creative Mktg. Alliance, Inc. v. Consolidated Servs. Group, Inc., Case No. 09-518 (D. N.J. April 14, 2009).

This post written by John Black.

Filed Under: Arbitration / Court Decisions, 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.