Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

Arbitrator Found Not to Have Issued a Reasoned Award, SDNY Remands to Arbitrator for Clarification

by

The Southern District of New York remanded an arbitration award back to the arbitrator for clarification, as the parties had agreed to a “reasoned” award, and the arbitrator exceeded his authority in issuing an award that did not meet the standard of a reasoned opinion. In dismissing the petitioner’s arguments, the court noted that “the arbitrator conclusorily states that ‘having heard all of the testimony, reviewed all of the documentary proofs and exhibits, he does not find support for [the petitioner’s] claims.’ … There is no reason given for this finding other than the negative credibility determination as to [the petitioner’s] expert witness.” New York precedent states: “[A]n arbitrator exceeds his or her powers when the arbitrator renders a form of award that does not satisfy the requirements the parties stipulated to in their arbitration agreement.”

Smarter Tools, Inc v Chongqing SENCI Import & Export Trade Co., 1:18-cv-02714 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2019)

Fourth Circuit Holds That Arbitrator Exceeded Powers

by

Williamson Farm challenged the district court’s decision to vacate an arbitration award that Williamson won against Diversified Crop Insurance, a private insurance company that sold a federal crop insurance policy to Williamson. Federal crop insurance policies are sold pursuant to the Federal Crop Insurance Act (FCIA). The FCIA established the FCIC, a government corporation that administers the federal crop insurance program. The FCIC relies on approved insurance providers, such as Diversified Crop, to issue federal crop insurance policies to farmers. The FCIC reinsures the approved insurance providers’ losses and reimburses their administrative and operating costs. The approved insurance providers must comply with FCIA and other regulations.

In this instance, Williamson made two separate claims under its policy for crop loss and prevention of planting, both of which were denied by Diversified Crop. Williamson then sought arbitration pursuant to the policy. After the arbitrator issued its award, Williamson filed a motion to confirm the award in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. Diversified Crop simultaneously filed a motion to vacate the award. The district court granted Diversified Crop’s motion to vacate the award and denied Williamson’s motion to confirm the award. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that the arbitrator exceeded her powers by: (1) impermissibly interpreting the policy rather than obtaining an interpretation from the FCIC; and (2) awarding extracontractual damages. The court explained that both the policy and FCIC regulations provide that only the FCIC, and not the arbitrator, may interpret the policy, and therefore the arbitrator exceeded her powers by interpreting the policy herself without obtaining an FCIC interpretation for the disputed policy provisions. Further, the court explained that the FCIC has conclusively stated in multiple final agency determinations that extracontractual damages cannot be awarded in arbitration and can only be sought through judicial review and therefore, by awarding extra-contractual damages, she exceeded her powers.

Williamson Farm v. Diversified Crop Ins. Servs., No. 18-1463 (4th Cir. Feb. 27, 2019)

Connecticut Superior Court Holds That Consolidation Is a Procedural Question to Be Considered by an Arbitrator

by

The Hartford and Employers Insurance Co. of Wausau entered into a Non-Obligatory Casualty Excess of Loss Reinsurance Agreement (the “Agreement”). The Agreement contained an arbitration provision that provides that the arbitration panel should consist of three arbitrators, one chosen by each party and then the third chosen by the two chosen.

Hartford demanded arbitration under the Agreement and 18 other contracts arising out of eight different reinsurance programs between Wausau and four subsidiaries of Hartford. Wausau responded to the arbitration demand arguing that each contract required separate arbitrators and to avoid this Wausau proposed consolidating the arbitrations into three separate proceedings against Hartford and its subsidiaries. Hartford would not proceed with Wausau’s proposal, arguing that any consolidation was for the arbitrators to determine, not the parties.

Wausau filed a summons with the Connecticut Superior Court demanding that Hartford appoint an arbitrator under the Agreement, and Hartford responded by filing a cross-motion to compel arbitration in this action. The court explained that if the parties have an agreement to arbitrate and one of the parties refuses to submit to arbitration, the party seeking arbitration may petition a court for an order compelling arbitration. Whether a dispute is subject to arbitration is a question for the court; however, “procedural questions which grow out of the [parties’] dispute and bear on its final disposition are presumptively not for the judge, but for an arbitrator, to decide.” Further, whether an arbitration proceeding should be consolidated with one or more other arbitration proceedings is a question for the arbitrator.

In this case, the parties did not dispute that they entered into a valid arbitration agreement and that their dispute fell within the scope of the agreement. Therefore, the court held that the procedural question of consolidation is for the arbitrators and not for the court to decide.

Employers Ins. Co. of Wausau v. The Hartford, No. HHD CV 18 6099158 S (Conn. Super. Ct. Feb. 13, 2019)

District Court Denies Summary Judgment to Trustee of Trust Account Maintained for Beneficiary of “Fronted” Reinsurance Program

by

The U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina denied summary judgment to the trustee of an account established pursuant to a “fronted” reinsurance program. The plaintiff, Accident Insurance Co. (AIC), participated in the program with non-party Freestone Insurance Co. Freestone paid AIC a fee to use its name and paper as a “front,” while bearing the actual risk of the fronted policies by reinsuring them under a “Program Agreement” with AIC. That agreement required Freestone to deposit funds into a separate trust account to be maintained by a trustee for AIC’s benefit. The defendant, U.S. Bank National Association, was the trustee. After Freeman went into receivership, AIC sued U.S. Bank for civil conspiracy and breach of fiduciary duty, among other things, after learning that nearly $7 million in trust assets seemingly disappeared. U.S. Bank moved for summary judgment on the civil conspiracy claim, arguing AIC could not have conspired with its wholly owned subsidiaries, and had no evidence of a “meeting of the minds” between these entities to “illegally transfer” trust assets. The court denied the motion, finding a genuine issue of fact as to each element of the civil conspiracy claim, and that breach of fiduciary duty is an independent tort that can give rise to a civil conspiracy claim under Delaware law.

Accident Ins. Co. v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, No. 3:16-cv-02621-JMC (D. S.C. Mar. 22, 2019).

S.D.N.Y. Vacates Amended Arbitration Award, Confirms Original $39 Million Award, Finding Panel Exceeded Authority and Manifestly Disregarded Law

by

The Southern District of New York recently vacated a $37 million arbitration award (“Amended Award”), and confirmed an original award of $39 million (“Original Award”), finding the panel exceeded its authority and acted in “manifest disregard” of the law by imposing the $2 million reduction. The petitioners argued the reduction was beyond the scope of the panel’s power under American Arbitration Association (AAA) rules because it was based on substantive accounting issues already decided on the merits of the Original Award. Under AAA rules, the petitioners asserted, the panel was only authorized to correct “clerical, typographical, or computational errors” in the Original Award. The respondents insisted that the Amended Award reflected only a computational error and was therefore within the scope of the panel’s authority.

The district court disagreed that the reduction was merely computational, instead finding it involved substantive legal issues as to the method for calculating the award. By calculating the Original and Amended Awards differently, the court agreed with the petitioners that the panel exceeded its authority under AAA rules and that the Amended Award must be vacated pursuant to section 10(a)(4) of the FAA. The court also held, however, that the panel acted in manifest disregard of the law by reducing the award. While the panel itself acknowledged “well-defined, explicit and clearly applicable law prohibiting [it] from exercising jurisdiction over an issue of law already determined … and raised for the first time after the [original] award issued,” the court held that the panel ignored that law by changing course on the method of calculating the petitioner’s damages. The court found this to be an independent basis for vacating the Amended Award and confirming the Original Award under Second Circuit precedent.

Credit Agricole Corp. & Inv. Bank v. Black Diamond Capital Mgmt. LLC, No. 1:18-cv-07620-KNF (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2019).