• 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 / FEDERAL COURTS COMPELS ARBITRATION OF CAPTIVE INSURANCE DISPUTE

FEDERAL COURTS COMPELS ARBITRATION OF CAPTIVE INSURANCE DISPUTE

May 11, 2016 by Carlton Fields

Plaintiffs Capstone Associated Services, Ltd. And Capstone Associated Services (Wyoming), Limited Partnership (collectively, “Capstone”) brought suit against various defendants concerning the use of and rights to certain intellectual property related to a captive insurance arrangement. The parties agreed to mediate their dispute, resulting in the execution of a Mediated Settlement Agreement (“MSA”) that covered all of the claims between the parties except the intellectual property claims pending the lawsuit. The MSA contained an arbitration provision.

Thereafter, Capstone moved to compel arbitration under the MSA. After the arbitrator designated by the MSA declined his appointment, Capstone sought arbitration pursuant an arbitration agreement in an engagement letter that was part of the operative contract they and their attorneys (“Feldman”) entered into with the defendants as part of the captive insurance arrangement. Capstone argued that the affirmative defenses asserted by the defendants in the lawsuit were encompassed by the arbitration provision because those defenses challenged the propriety of the services provided by Capstone and Feldman under the engagement letter. The defendants opposed arbitration under the engagement letter, arguing that the parties’ claims and affirmative defenses were not arbitrable under the relevant provision.

Applying the standard set forth in the Federal Arbitration Act, the court denied Capstone’s motion to compel arbitration under the MSA, ruling that because the designated arbitrator declined his appointment, compelling arbitration in an alternative manner would be inconsistent with the express terms of the MSA’s arbitration agreement. However, the court granted Capstone’s motion to compel pursuant to the arbitration clause in the engagement letter, holding that the arbitrability of the parties’ claims and defenses were to be decided in arbitration, and not by the Court, under the terms of the operative clause. Capstone Associated Services, Ltd., et al. v. Organizational Strategies, Inc., et al., No. H-15-3233 (USDC S.D.Tex. Apr. 8, 2016).

This post written by Rob DiUbaldo.

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.