• 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 / NEW JERSEY APPELLATE HOLDS THAT POLICYHOLDER MUST ARBITRATE BID-RIGGING AND OTHER CONSPIRACY CLAIMS AGAINST INSURERS

NEW JERSEY APPELLATE HOLDS THAT POLICYHOLDER MUST ARBITRATE BID-RIGGING AND OTHER CONSPIRACY CLAIMS AGAINST INSURERS

January 6, 2010 by Carlton Fields

American International Group, Inc. (“AIG”) and its subsidiary, National Union Fire Insurance Company (“National Union”) moved to compel arbitration of claims brought against them by the plaintiff, Epix Holding Corporation (“Epix”) in New Jersey state court. Epix alleged that the insurers were engaged in an illegal bid-rigging scheme with the broker (the co-defendants Marsh McClennan Companies, Inc. and March USA, Inc.), and other improper tactics, for the purpose of imposing higher premiums and onerous payment conditions on insureds such as Epix. The trial court denied the motions to compel arbitration, but the New Jersey Appellate Court reversed. Epix argued that the dispute primarily pertained to certain premium calculations that were not intended to come within the scope of the parties’ arbitration agreement. It also argued that AIG is not entitled to enforce the arbitration agreement because it was not a signatory to the contract. The Appellate Court rejected Epix’s arguments, finding that, on the threshold standing issue that AIG and National Union (which was a signatory to the contract containing the arbitration clause) were substantially aligned in connection with Epix’s allegations against them, and that AIG’s status as a non-signatory was thus immaterial. It also rejected Epix’s arguments that the dispute was not within the scope of the arbitration agreement, given the wide range of allegations Epix made against the insurers. Epix Holding Corp. v. March & McClennan Companies, Inc., No. A-3059-08T3 (N.J. App. Ct. Nov. 17, 2009).

This post written by John Pitblado.

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.