• 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 / COURT DISTINGUISHES BETWEEN CLAIMS FOR RELIEF AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES IN DENYING REHEARING OF ORDER COMPELLING ARBITRATION

COURT DISTINGUISHES BETWEEN CLAIMS FOR RELIEF AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES IN DENYING REHEARING OF ORDER COMPELLING ARBITRATION

July 27, 2016 by Carlton Fields

On May 11, 2016 we reported on a dispute between certain captive insurance administrative service providers (Capstone) against various defendants concerning the rights to certain intellectual property related to a captive insurance arrangement. Following a mediation and a settlement between the parties of other claims between them (excluding the intellectual property claims), a dispute arose regarding whether the defendants’ affirmative defenses were released in the settlement. To resolve that issue, Capstone sought arbitration pursuant to an engagement letter that was part of the operative administrative services contract they and their attorneys entered into with the defendants as part of the captive insurance arrangement. The defendants opposed arbitration under the engagement letter, arguing that the parties’ claims and affirmative defenses were not arbitrable. The court compelled arbitration, holding that arbitrability was to be decided in arbitration under the terms of the arbitration clause in the engagement letter.

The defendants then filed the instant motion for rehearing, arguing that an order in a related case which denied arbitration under the same engagement letter, precluded arbitration in this case under res judicata. The court rejected that argument and denied rehearing, distinguishing between the claims for relief at issue in the order in the related case, and the affirmative defenses to those claims at issue in this case. While the claims for relief implicate a particular section of the administrative services agreement based on which the related order denied arbitration, the defenses at issue in this case do not directly implicate that section of the agreement. Consequently, the court ruled, the related order denying arbitration “did not decide the issue before the Court,” res judicata did not apply, and the court correctly compelled arbitration to decide arbitrability. Capstone Associated Services, Ltd., et al. v. Organizational Strategies, Inc., et al., No. H-15-3233 (USDC S.D.Tex. May 20, 2016).

This post written by Michael Wolgin.

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.