Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

West Virginia Supreme Court Reverses, Finds “Delegation Clause” in Employment Arbitration Agreement Neither Ambiguous nor Unconscionable

by

Petitioners, two Rent-A-Center entities, moved to compel arbitration of a lawsuit by Anita Ellis alleging that Rent-A-Center unlawfully terminated her employment for seeking workers’ compensation benefits. At the time she was hired, Ellis signed an arbitration agreement stating that she agreed to arbitrate any claims arising out of her employment and/or termination. In seeking to compel arbitration, Rent-A-Center specifically relied on a “delegation clause” in the arbitration agreement stating that the arbitrator — not any court — shall have exclusive authority to resolve any challenge to the applicability, enforceability, or formation of the arbitration agreement, including on the grounds that it was void, voidable, ambiguous, unconscionable, or in violation of state law. Ellis argued that the delegation clause was: (1) ambiguous and failed to reflect an unmistakable intent to delegate arbitrability issues to the arbitrator; (2) unconscionable under state common law; and (3) invalid for violating a West Virginia statute. The lower court held that the delegation clause was both procedurally and substantively unconscionable and that there was no mutual agreement to arbitrate. It therefore denied Rent-A-Center’s motion to compel arbitration, but the Supreme Court of West Virginia reversed.

With respect to Ellis’ first argument, the court noted that it had previously considered the exact delegation clause at issue here and held that it clearly and unmistakably expressed an intent to delegate arbitrability issues to the arbitrator. It thus rejected Ellis’ contrary argument. The court next rejected Ellis’ argument that the delegation clause was unconscionable or otherwise invalid under common law contract principles and West Virginia statute. Ellis claimed the provision suffered from various “contract of adhesion” characteristics often associated with procedural unconscionability (e.g., unequal bargaining power, “take-it-or-leave-it” terms, and others). The court disagreed, however, finding the failure to read a contract does not relieve a party of its binding effect. And while an arbitration clause generally will not be deemed “unconscionable” absent proof of both procedural and substantive unconscionability, the court found Ellis failed to prove substantive unconscionability nonetheless. The court noted that in order for it to consider Ellis’ delegation clause challenge, 9 U.S.C. § 2 and the “severability doctrine” required her to specifically object to the delegation clause, rather than the arbitration agreement as a whole. Because Ellis’ “statutory violation” argument was directed to the arbitration agreement as a whole, it could not serve as a basis for invalidating the delegation clause on unconscionability grounds.

Rent-A-Center, Inc. v. Ellis, 827 S.E.2d 605 (W.Va. 2019)

Court Finds Panel Did Not Manifestly Disregard Law When It Entered FINRA Award in Favor of Investment Firm and Advisors in Dispute over Fraud Committed by Late NFL Player’s Agent

by

The widow of a former NFL football player sued the player’s sports agent and financial adviser, alleging that the former player was defrauded by the agent in connection with the loss of the proceeds of the player’s life insurance policy. The plaintiff alleged that upon the player’s death, the insurance proceeds were paid to a trust, for which the agent acted as trustee without authorization. The funds were depleted by the agent, and the plaintiff asserted claims of breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and fraud against the agent and the agent’s investment firm and financial advisors.

The matter went to FINRA arbitration, and the panel concluded that the investment firm and the financial advisors were not legally responsible for the harm. The plaintiff moved to vacate the award on the ground that the panel manifestly disregarded the law when it reached the conclusion that “the Investment Firm and Investment Advisors were not required to conduct any investigation into the obviously suspicious and fraudulent behavior.” The firm and advisors moved to confirm the award, arguing that the plaintiff’s motion to vacate the award was untimely beyond the three-month limitation period. They relied upon the early issuance of the award, which contained two out of three signatures of the panel. The plaintiff relied upon a later date on which the third signature on the award was issued.

The court avoided ruling on the issue of timeliness, noting that some case law did support raising grounds for vacatur as a defense to a motion to confirm, even after the limitations period has expired. Turning to whether the panel manifestly disregarded the law, the court explained that, assuming “manifest disregard” is even a valid ground for vacatur in the Fifth Circuit, the panel did not disregard the existence of a clearly governing legal principle. The panel determined that “the Trustee of the trust was the person solely responsible for the asset destruction of the trust” and that the plaintiff failed to present any breach of a fiduciary duty “under any law or regulation.” The court concluded that “the Panel considered the existence of governing law, but found that a fiduciary duty did not exist under this law. Plaintiff’s issue with the arbitration decision is not that the Panel ignored the law entirely, but that the Panel did not reach Plaintiff’s desired outcome when applying the law. Therefore, even under the ‘manifest disregard of the law’ standard, Plaintiff’s motion for vacatur fails.” The court therefore denied the motion to vacate and confirmed the award.

Warren v. Geller, No. 2:11-cv-02282 (E.D. La. May 3, 2019).

Confidential Reinsurance Agreement Made Public After Party Failed to Show Good Cause for Maintaining Confidentiality

by

A reinsurance agreement and attachments filed in a court proceeding and purportedly containing “all manner of confidential and proprietary business information,” including “product design,” “service standards,” “pricing,” and “acquisition expenses and claim administration expenses,” were made public after the filing party failed to demonstrate “good cause” for keeping the documents secret.

“The court’s operation is of ‘utmost public concern.'” “Its business is ‘presumptively public.'” Furthermore, the public has both a limited First Amendment right of access to civil trial proceedings and a separate common law right to inspect and copy judicial records. While material filed with discovery motions is not subject to the common law right of access, material filed in conjunction with pretrial motions that require judicial resolution is subject to the common law right. In addition, the existence of a protective order does not automatically override the public’s right of access. Rather, the party seeking to maintain secrecy of the documents “must establish good cause for continued protection under Rule 26.” “An agreed or stipulated protective order merely postpones the need to litigate good cause document by document.”

To maintain confidentiality, a movant must “make a particularized showing of ‘good cause’ and a specific demonstration of fact by affidavit or testimony of a witness with personal knowledge, of the specific harm that would result from disclosure or loss of confidentiality; generalities, conclusory statements, and unsupported contentions do not suffice.” In this case, the movant “provided no specific explanations, evidence, or declarations that demonstrate why the exhibits should be sealed.” Instead, the movant only made “general, unsupported contentions” that the documents were confidential and that their disclosure would be harmful. Because there was no “particularized showing of good cause,” the court denied the motion to uphold confidentiality.

Theriot v. Nw. Mut. Life Ins. Co., No. 2:18-cv-00688 (M.D. Ala. May 17, 2019).

Southern District Confirms Arbitration Award Over Challenge Based on Failure of Arbitrators to Disclose Information

by

The Southern District of New York has rejected a petition to vacate an arbitration award on the basis that the arbitrators failed to disclose allegedly material information.

Michael Miller worked as a financial advisor in a UBS branch. UBS gave Miller six loans, and Miller agreed any disputes regarding the loans could be arbitrated. A dispute regarding the loans arose after Miller left his job. Miller and UBS selected arbitrators in accordance with FINRA’s rules. The arbitrators ruled in favor of UBS. Miller unsuccessfully sought to vacate their award in the Southern District.

In his effort to vacate the award, Miller claimed the arbitrators failed to disclose pertinent information during the selection process resulting in the award (1) exceeding the arbitrators’ powers; and (2) an award that was the result of partiality or corruption in violation of FINRA’s rules. Specifically, Miller claimed one arbitrator (Teveris) failed to disclose she had represented an investor before FINRA in an unrelated matter in her initial disclosure and failed to sufficiently disclose the representation in her oath. He also claimed that another arbitrator (Rolnick) failed to disclose he was a defendant in an unrelated federal lawsuit. But Miller failed to explain how such information prevented the arbitrators from being objective. The court also rejected Miller’s argument that the information was material and would have affected how he ranked the arbitrators. That was not the standard, and the usefulness of the information was irrelevant, the court explained.

Miller also argued Rolnick had a potential interest in UBS securities that he failed to fully explain after he answered “yes” to a question asking if he or an immediate family member invested in or held securities that were the subject of the arbitration. While interest in UBS was a potential problem, it was disclosed and Miller was therefore on notice of a fact potentially indicative of bias. The applicable rules did not clearly require additional disclosures, and Miller failed to object to the allegedly incomplete disclosure, thereby waiving any right to challenge it. Moreover, Miller had been expressly told that he could object to the arbitrators after he was informed about the potential conflict.

If you don’t act as soon as practical on your right to challenge arbitrators based on information you know (or should know) about them, don’t expect to be able to vacate the award later.

Miller v. UBS Fin. Servs. Inc., No. 1:18-cv-08415 (S.D.N.Y. May 6, 2019)

U.K. Court of Appeal Prohibits “Spiking” in Mesothelioma Cases in Win for Reinsurers

by

In a closely watched case, the Court of Appeal of England and Wales has given reinsurers a win with respect to reinsurance claims related to mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases. The decision bars insurers from engaging in “spiking.” Under that practice, insurers were making a single reinsurance claim for the entire loss to an injured employee under a single reinsurance policy of their choosing rather than allocating the loss on a pro rata basis between the various policy years in which the employee was exposed to asbestos. Prohibiting “spiking” is a significant win for reinsurers.

The decision stemmed from a dispute between insurer Municipal Mutual Insurance Limited (MMI) and reinsurer Equitas Insurance Limited.

For decades, MMI has issued employers’ liability (EL) policies to insured entities on an annual basis. Many of the entities insured by MMI faced claims from their employees for mesothelioma and other diseases related to exposure to asbestos in the workplace. Because of unique developments in the law of the United Kingdom regarding asbestos litigation, employees who made such claims did not need to prove which employer caused the critical exposure or the year in which the critical exposure occurred. (Under the Fairchild jurisprudence, all employers who made a material contribution to the risk of mesothelioma are jointly and severally liable for the employee’s injury. Pursuant to an act of Parliament that reversed a Barker decision, an employee can recover their entire damages from any employer during the years in question.) As a result, MMI did not need to, nor did it, identify which policy provided coverage for a particular claim when it paid claims. Nor did MMI apportion the claims among policy years.

MMI reinsured its liability under its EL policies with Lloyd’s syndicates whose liabilities are currently held by Equitas. Unsurprisingly, MMI presented its claims for asbestos-related losses to Equitas initially on a pro rata basis whereby the loss was divided over the years the claimant was exposed to asbestos. However, after several years, MMI began presenting each claim under a single year of reinsurance. MMI claimed that, because each underlying insurance policy was liable in full for the loss, each claim could be presented to a single annual reinsurance policy of its choice, i.e., “spiking.” Spiking benefited MMI because it maximized its recovery. By spiking, MMI avoided multiple retentions, submitting claims to reinsurers who were insolvent and reducing paperwork and potential disputes. Spiking was detrimental to Equitas because, by MMI’s spiking, MMI had fewer retentions and was able to submit more to reinsurance, and Equitas could find itself paying for years it had not provided reinsurance.

Equitas and MMI arbitrated whether MMI could engage in “spiking.” A judge-arbitrator ruled in favor of MMI, agreeing that, because developments in the law made each annual EL policy liable for all of an insured’s loss, MMI had a contractual right to present its claim for reinsurance under any reinsurance policy year that corresponded to an EL policy year that was liable for the individual claimant’s loss. The judge-arbitrator further concluded, among other things, that even if MMI had a duty of good faith with respect to how it presented its reinsurance claims, MMI did not breach that duty because it had “expressly acknowledged that there was a need for equitable recoupment and contribution to redress any anomalies.”

Equitas obtained leave to appeal the judge-arbitrator’s decision.

The Court of Appeal reversed. The court rested its decision on the duty of good faith. (Notably, the court (and the judge-arbitrator) explained that the duty of good faith in New York differs significantly from the duty of good faith under the law of the United Kingdom.) Lord Justice Males, whose decision was joined by Lord Justice Leggatt (who also wrote a concurrence) and Lord Justice Patten, summarized his reasoning regarding the duty as follows:

In my judgment there are powerful reasons to support the implication of a term in the very specific reinsurance context existing within the Fairchild enclave that the insurer’s right to present its reinsurance claims must be exercised in a manner which is not arbitrary, irrational or capricious, and that in that context rationality requires that they be presented by reference to each year’s contribution to the risk, which will normally be measured by reference to time on risk unless in the particular circumstances there is a good reason (such as differing intensity of exposure) for some other basis of presentation.

The reasons supporting applying the duty of good faith in that manner included the fact that “spiking is inconsistent with the presumed intentions and reasonable expectations of the parties at the time when the contracts were concluded,” which was long before the unique Fairchild jurisprudence that allowed MMI to choose between numerous policies existed.

The Court of Appeal therefore adopted the method proposed by Equitas: Reinsurance claims based on exposure in multiple policy years for which the insurer has not allocated its loss among the various policy years at issue must nevertheless be presented to the reinsurer on a pro rata basis for purposes of calculating the applicable reinsurance payment.

MMI will likely appeal the decision to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.

Assuming it stands, the Court of Appeal’s decision constitutes a significant win for reinsurers exposed to asbestos-related claims in the United Kingdom. Spreading reinsurance claims regarding asbestos injuries across multiple policy years will require compliance with multiple retentions and potentially mean that more than one reinsurer is involved in each claim.

Equitas Ins. Ltd. v. Municipal Mut. Ins. Ltd., [2019] EWCA Civ 718 (Apr. 17, 2019).