• 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 / District Court Enforces Mandatory Arbitration Clause, Despite State Law Prohibiting Such Provisions in Insurance Contracts

District Court Enforces Mandatory Arbitration Clause, Despite State Law Prohibiting Such Provisions in Insurance Contracts

February 5, 2020 by Alex Silverman

Defendants, Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s and its third-party claims administrator, CJW & Associates, sought to enforce a mandatory arbitration clause in a Lloyd’s policy issued to the plaintiffs. Enforcement of the provision depended on the interplay between four laws: (1) a Washington statute barring mandatory arbitration clauses in insurance contracts; (2) Article II, Section 3 of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, which requires courts to enforce arbitration agreements; (3) the McCarran-Ferguson Act, which provides that state insurance law preempts any conflicting “Act of Congress”; and (4) Chapter 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), which Congress amended to implement the Convention as it relates to disputes involving foreign parties.

Lloyd’s being a foreign party, the question before the Washington district court was whether amending Chapter 2 of the FAA was an “Act of Congress” within the meaning of the McCarran-Ferguson Act. If so, then the Washington insurance law would preempt the Convention and bar enforcement of the arbitration clause in the Lloyd’s policy.

While recognizing that federal courts have reached diverging conclusions on the issue, the court was persuaded by a California decision finding that the word “shall” in Section 3 of the Convention expressly directs courts to enforce arbitration agreements and thus gives Section 3 “automatic effect.” In other words, Section 3 was “self-executing,” and, consequently, no “Act of Congress” was necessary for it to be enforced. As such, the court held that the McCarran-Ferguson Act did not apply and that the arbitration clause at issue was not invalidated by Washington law. The court went on to find the clause enforceable under the Convention, as limited by Chapter 2 of the FAA. Although an issue arose as to the requirement that at least one party to the arbitration agreement not be an American citizen, the court found the commercial relationship between the parties was sufficiently tied to a foreign state, as the policy was underwritten by the London insurance market, which was created and remains governed by Parliament. Even though CJW was a nonsignatory to the Lloyd’s policy, as Lloyds’ claims administrator, the court found CJW had acted as Lloyd’s agent and thus was permitted to invoke the policy’s arbitration clause.

CLMS Mgmt. Servs. Ltd. P’ship v. Amwins Brokerage of Ga., LLC, No. 3:19-cv-05785 (W.D. Wa. Dec. 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.