• 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 Stays Yacht-Wreck Coverage Action Pending Concurrent Proceeding to Vacate Arbitration Award in Favor of Insurers

Court Stays Yacht-Wreck Coverage Action Pending Concurrent Proceeding to Vacate Arbitration Award in Favor of Insurers

September 10, 2019 by Alex Silverman

Taunia Kittler, through Galilea LLC, owned a 60-foot sailing yacht named Galilea. In June 2015, the Galilea crashed off the coast of Panama and was deemed a complete loss. Kittler and Galilea LLC sought insurance coverage from the insurer-defendants, which denied the claim on the ground that the accident had occurred outside the covered cruising area. The insurers then commenced arbitration against Galilea in New York.

In June 2018, while the arbitration was pending, Kittler and Galilea commenced a separate action in Montana federal court, asserting claims that were identical to the counterclaims they asserted in the arbitration proceeding. The insurers moved to dismiss and/or stay the case pending final resolution of the arbitration, and, in March 2019, certain of Kittler and Galilea’s claims were dismissed. The remainder of the insurers’ motion was referred to the magistrate judge for resolution. One month later, the arbitrators issued an award in favor of the insurers, finding that Kittler and Galilea were not entitled to coverage for the Galilea wreckage. In June 2019, while the insurers’ motion to dismiss and/or stay was still pending, Kittler and Galilea moved to vacate the arbitration award in the Southern District of New York.

In the most recent development, the Montana district court agreed with the insurers to stay the case pending the outcome of Kittler and Galilea’s motion to vacate the arbitration award. Because Kittler and Galilea’s claims in the case were identical to those asserted in the arbitration proceeding – which was resolved against Kittler and Galilea – and because Kittler and Galilea have challenged the arbitration award, the court held that the award was not “final.” As such, it determined that a stay of the case was required, citing the “liberal federal policy favoring arbitration.” Given the significant overlap of issues, the court also noted that the case may be rendered moot by the outcome of the proceedings in the Southern District of New York, and that absent a stay of the case, any decisions therein may result in inconsistent rulings.

Galilea, LLC v. Pantaenius Am. Ltd., No. 1:18-cv-00131 (D. Mont. Aug. 26, 2019).

Filed Under: Arbitration / Court Decisions

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.