Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

“Partial Final” Does Not Mean Final

by

Don’t try to confirm an arbitration award when there is still arbitration work to be done. Relying on Seventh Circuit precedent, the Northern District of Illinois concluded that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to confirm an arbitration award because the arbitrators’ work was incomplete and the arbitration hearing wasn’t finished.

FCE Benefit Administrators Inc., a third-party benefits administrator, agreed to administer health insurance policies underwritten by Standard Security Life Insurance Co. of New York and Madison National Life Insurance Co. The life insurers terminated the agreement, alleging that FCE had breached it, essentially by doing a bad job. They initiated arbitration and FCE counterclaimed, claiming the insurers wrongfully terminated the agreement.

Before the arbitration, FCE sought a continuance for discovery and to amend its counterclaim. The panel denied the request for a continuance, but granted the request to amend. In addition, the panel explained that FCE’s counterclaims would be presented at a second phase of the arbitration at which FCE would also be required to produce certain documents.

The parties proceeded to arbitration and the panel issued a “Partial Final Award” in favor of the insurers, concluding that the insurers were within their rights to terminate the agreement. The panel awarded the insurers nearly $5.4 million and determined that “[a]ll other claims for relief by the parties [were] denied.” The insurers sought to confirm the award.

The district court dismissed the insurers’ claim for confirmation for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It explained that courts lack jurisdiction to confirm an award when the arbitrators’ work was unfinished. Although the award in this case had resolved the insurers’ claim and denied all other claims, it was “undisputed that the Panel still ha[d] left to adjudicate, at a minimum, FCE’s counterclaim against” the insurers. All parties had contemplated a “Phase II.”

Standard Sec. Life Ins. Co. of New York v. FCE Benefit Adm’rs, Inc., No. 19 CV 64 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 13, 2019).

Court Rejects Attempt to Relitigate Arbitration Award

by

The California Court of Appeal (Fourth District) recently rejected a dissatisfied litigant’s attempt to relitigate an arbitration decision that went against it to the tune of more than $18 million.

An employee of American Claims Management Inc. (ACM), a third-party administrator hired by QBE Insurance Corp. (QBE) to manage QBE’s claims, had a major case of the Mondays and apparently neglected to inform QBE about a demand for a $30,000 policy limit following a car accident. As a result of that “oops,” QBE paid $15 million to settle the claim. QBE then sued ACM for breach of contract. The parties arbitrated the dispute. An arbitration panel awarded QBE nearly $18.5 million.

QBE then petitioned a California trial court to confirm the arbitration award. ACM opposed. The court sided with QBE and confirmed the award, noting ACM appeared to be attempting to relitigate the arbitration award because it did not agree with the panel’s decision. ACM appealed. It raised a number of arguments. Specifically, ACM asserted that the arbitration panel had exceeded its powers by, for example, failing to cite California law, creating law that violated California law, awarding way too much money, and ignoring the Federal Arbitration Act. The appellate court didn’t quite see things ACM’s way, however. It noted that its review was exceptionally narrow and that it could only correct an arbitration award when the arbitrators “exceeded their powers but the award may be corrected without affecting the merits of the decision” (i.e., if the decision was “so utterly irrational that it amounts to an arbitrary remaking of the contract between the parties”). While ACM had couched its arguments in terms of exceeding power, the court concluded that ACM’s “claims amount[ed] to nothing more than assertions of legal error.”

The morals of this case: (1) if you’re a claims administrator, promptly report the claims that come in; and (2) don’t be fooled into thinking that claiming an arbitration panel “exceeded its powers” is a magic password to judicial review.

QBE Ins. Corp. v. Am. Claims Mgmt., Inc., No. D073345 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 4, 2019), reh’g denied (Feb. 27, 2019).

District Court Declines to Decide Procedural Arbitrability Issue, Separately Seals Docket, Finding “Reasonably Significant Privacy Interest” in Reinsurance Treaties

by

Everest Reinsurance Co. reinsured Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Co. under several treaties requiring the parties to arbitrate all disputes. The arbitration clauses in the treaties also contained a “consolidation” provision stating that “[i]f more than one Reinsurer is involved in the same dispute, all such Reinsurers shall constitute and act as one party for the purposes of this Article.” A dispute later arose and Pennsylvania Mutual commenced arbitration, but Everest refused to participate fully, claiming the dispute should have been joined with an earlier arbitration between Pennsylvania Mutual and other reinsurers. While the parties agreed that this threshold “consolidation” issue was for arbitrators to decide, not the court, they disagreed as to which arbitrators. Pennsylvania Mutual wanted a new panel; Everest wanted the prior panel. The court agreed with Pennsylvania Mutual, finding the issue was purely “procedural” and, therefore, not for the court to decide. The court enforced the process set forth in the treaties for selecting a new arbitration panel before whom Everest could raise consolidation as a threshold issue.

Separately, Pennsylvania Mutual moved to seal various documents submitted in support of its motion to compel arbitration, including its arbitration demand to Everest, subsequent correspondence, and the relevant treaties. The court agreed with Pennsylvania Mutual that it had a “reasonably significant privacy interest” in the treaties and the “sensitive and proprietary” information in its correspondence with Everest. Because Pennsylvania Mutual negotiates various agreements with different reinsurers, each of which is likely similar, but not necessarily identical, the court held that “disclosure of the precise terms of any one agreement could reasonably have a significant impact on [Pennsylvania Mutual’s] ability to negotiate other agreements with different reinsurers.” Finding this privacy interest “substantially outweighs” the minimal public interest in disclosure, the court granted Pennsylvania Mutual’s motions.

Pennsylvania Nat’l Mut. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Everest Reinsurance Co., No. 1:18-mc-00653 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 14, 2019).

Ninth Circuit Dismisses Interlocutory Appeal, Finds Order Compelling Arbitration Not a “Final Decision” Under FAA

by

The plaintiff filed a putative class action for alleged violations of California employment law, and the defendant moved to compel arbitration. The district court granted the motion and stayed further proceedings pending a ruling by the arbitrators as to the arbitrability of the dispute. But before submitting the matter to arbitration, the plaintiff voluntarily discontinued the action without prejudice and immediately appealed the district court’s order. The Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal, however, finding it lacked jurisdiction. The court agreed with the defendant that the plaintiff’s “voluntary discontinuance and immediate appeal” was an impermissible attempt to sidestep the “final-judgment rule, the Federal Arbitration Act’s explicit bar on interlocutory appeals, and prevailing case law.” Because the order compelling arbitration was not a “final decision” under § 16(a) of the FAA, the plaintiff was required to seek the district court’s permission to pursue the appeal, but failed to do so. That he voluntarily discontinued the action before appealing was deemed irrelevant, particularly since the discontinuance was without prejudice.

Gonzalez v. Coverall North America, Inc., No. 17-55787 (9th Cir. Feb. 22, 2019).

Trial Deadlines Continued in Collection Action Filed by Reinsurer Related to Fraudulent Transfer Scheme

by

We have been tracking Odyssey Reinsurance’s action to collect a $3.2 million judgment against Richard and Diane Nagby, the owners of two companies involved in an alleged fraudulent transfer scheme. See https://www.reinsurancefocus.com/tax-counsel-ordered-to-produce-documents-related-to-odyssey-reinsurances-continuing-quest-to-collect-3-2-million-default-judgment-against-richard-and-diane-nagby/ and https://www.reinsurancefocus.com/post-judgment-collection-efforts-of-reinsurer-continue-in-california-federal-court/. On January 16, 2019, the court denied Diane Nagby’s motion for the court to reconsider its order continuing the pretrial hearing to May 30, 2019. Trial is currently set for July.

Odyssey Reinsurance Co. v. Nagby, No. 3:16-cv-03038 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 2019).