Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

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).

English Court Enjoins Washington State Court Action in Favor of Arbitration in London

by

In a dispute involving a complex, multilayered excess insurance policy, the Commercial Court of the Queen’s Bench Division enjoined Weyerhaeuser, a Washington company, from suing Catlin Syndicate Limited, a London-based insurer, in Washington based on the parties’ agreement to arbitrate in London.

The “Layer 4 Policy” at the heart of the lawsuit provided that the choice of law and jurisdiction governing disputes under the contract would be “as per Lead Underlying Policy.” Endorsement 7 of the Lead Underlying Policy provided for “any dispute, controversy or claim arising out of or relating to the policy to be determined in London under the Arbitration Act 1996.” However, Endorsement 8 of the Lead Underlying Policy stated that Washington state law governed the policy, and Endorsement 9 provided that Catlin would “submit to the jurisdiction of any court of competent jurisdiction within the United States.” Significantly, however, Catlin’s submission to jurisdiction in the United States was “solely for the purpose of effectuating arbitration.” Therefore, the court held the result was dictated by Endorsement 7, which required the parties to arbitrate disputes in London.

The court gave great weight to the “commercial parties” involved in the dispute, finding that a conflict in drafting “could or should [not] lightly be attributed to commercial parties,” and “struggl[ing]” to see why “commercial parties” would provide for the “unusual” limits on arbitration advanced by Weyerhaeuser.

The court’s ruling was based on English law, but the court found the result would be the same under Washington law, as presented to the court via expert evidence. Although the court recognized that Washington’s adopted policy is “adverse to arbitration,” the court stated that an interpretation of the parties’ contract that “does not work commercially … weigh[s] strongly against” a finding that Washington state policy should alter the parties’ agreement.

Catlin Syndicate Limited v. Weyerhauser Company, No. CL-2018-000292, [2018] EWHC 3609 (Comm) (Dec. 21, 2018).

D.C. Circuit Court Affirms $1.2 Billion Arbitration Award to Gold-Mining Company

by

Crystallex International Corporation (“Crystallex”) is a Canadian gold-mining company. Crystallex acquired the rights to explore gold deposits in Venezuela through a contract. To explore the mines, Crystallex completed all the permit requirements and posted a bond. The Venezuelan Ministry of Environment denied the permits based on environmental concerns.

Crystallex initiated international arbitration proceedings, alleging that the denial of the permits violated a bilateral treaty between Canada and Venezuela. The arbitration tribunal awarded Crystallex a little more than $1.2 billion in damages. Crystallex petitioned in federal district court for confirmation of the award, and Venezuela opposed and moved to vacate the award under the FAA.

The district court affirmed the award and denied the motion to vacate. Venezuela appealed. On appeal, the court affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court explained that: (1) the district court considered all of Venezuela’s FAA arguments and applied the correct standard of review drawn from FAA case law; (2) the district court did not err in applying a deferential standard to its review of the arbitral award’s method of calculating damages; and (3) the district court did not confirm the arbitral award based on misunderstandings of the arbitration tribunal’s reasoning.

Crystallex Int’l Corp. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, No. 17-7068, 2019 WL 668270 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 14, 2019)