Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

Third Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Landlord’s Attempt to Vacate Arbitration Award

by

Sears Roebuck and Co. (Sears) entered a 40-year lease with Century III Mall, PA., LLC (“Century III Mall”), whereby Sears agreed to maintain an anchor store at the Century III Mall. In the event that Sears elected to discontinue operations, the lease provided Century III Mall with an option to acquire the Sears “Building and Improvements,” the valuation to be determined by a formula specified in the lease. The lease also contained an arbitration clause prohibiting the arbitrators from, among other things, changing any terms set forth in the lease. Sears later terminated the lease and Century III Mall exercised its right to acquire the Building and Improvements. Unable to agree on a valuation, Sears commenced arbitration and an arbitration panel awarded Sears nearly $4 million.

Century III Mall filed a petition in a federal district court in Pennsylvania seeking to vacate the award, claiming the panel exceeded its authority by “rewriting” the terms of lease and, in turn, inflating the property value. The district court disagreed and dismissed the action, as well as confirmed the award. The Third Circuit affirmed, noting, as an initial matter, that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction under 9 U.S.C. §§ 9 and 10 and 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and that appellate jurisdiction was proper under 9 U.S.C. § 16(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Substantively, the Third Circuit agreed with the district court that the panel reasonably interpreted the lease and rationally applied its terms. Thus, citing the “highly deferential standard of review” applicable to arbitration decisions, the Court declined to disturb the district court’s decision not to vacate the award.

Century III Mall, PA., LLC v. Sears Roebuck & Co., Nos. 17-2284 and 17-2759 (3d Cir. Dec. 20, 2018).

This post written by Alex Silverman.
See our disclaimer.

English High Court Refuses to Set Aside an Order for Enforcement of an International Arbitration Award

by

This case relates to a dispute between Eastern European Engineering Ltd. (“EEEL”) and Vijay Construction (Proprietary) Ltd. (“VCL”), both of which are incorporated in the Seychelles, arising out of the construction of a hotel resort and spa. In 2011, the parties had entered into six materially identical contracts. Disputes arose and EEEL eventually terminated the contracts. EEEL referred the disputes to an International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”) arbitration seated in Paris. A sole arbitrator was appointed, who issued an award in November 2014 in EEEL’s favor (the “Award”).

VCL challenged the Award in the French courts on three grounds. The French court dismissed VCL’s challenge. Although VCL initially appealed that decision, it did not purse the appeal and it was subsequently dismissed in May 2017. Concurrently, in January 2015, VCL also initiated proceedings in the Seychelles, seeking to set aside the Award on essentially the same grounds as those on which the challenges were based in the French proceedings. In April 2017, the Seychellois court dismissed all of VCL’s challenges and held that the Award was enforceable. VCL, however, successfully appealed that decision because, under Seychellois law, there is no power to order enforcement on the basis that the New York Convention had been previously repudiated by the Seychelles. The merits of the substantive grounds of the lower court’s decision were not considered in the appeal.

In August 2015, EEEL successfully obtained an order from the English High Court to enforce the Award in England and Wales and to enter judgment against VCL (the “August 2015 Order”). In October 2015, VCL applied under section 103 of the Arbitration Act 1996 to set aside the August 2015 Order. That application was stayed while the French and the Seychellois proceedings were pending. EEEL argued that VCL’s application should be denied because of issue estoppel and public policy on finality. As to issue estoppel, EEEL argued that the conditions were satisfied because the decision of the French court was a final merits decision in a court of competent jurisdiction between the same parties.

The English High Court denied VCL’s application to set aside the August 15 Order. First, the English court agreed that, in relation to VCL’s challenge based on jurisdiction, VCL was estopped as VCL’s argument in the English proceeding appeared to be exactly the same as that which was made in the French proceeding. As to VCL’s challenge on the ground of procedural unfairness, the court found that VCL’s argument was “slightly different” in the English proceeding, and thus the court considered the merits of the challenges. In considering each of VCL’s challenges, the court found that they failed. Thus, the English court did not have to reach the question of public policy on finality. It, however, noted that it would “have concluded that the balance came down in favor of upholding the public policy on finality,” explaining that the facts here, where VCL had sought to raise substantially the same challenges to the Award in two other courts, one of which had a full evidentiary hearing, “are circumstances which would weigh very heavily against allowing VCL a third challenge.”

Eastern European Engineering Ltd. v. Vijay Construction (Proprietary) Ltd., [2018] EWHC 2713 (Comm) (Oct. 11, 2018).

This post written by Jeanne Kohler.

See our disclaimer.

The Ninth Circuit Reverses California District Court’s Ruling Vacating Arbitration Award Based on Evident Partiality

by

The background of the case can be found here. In sum, in 2009, plaintiffs American Brokerage Network and its owner Cung Thai (collectively, “ABN”) and American General Life and Accident Insurance Company (“AGLA”), a subsidiary of American International Group, Inc. (“AIG”), entered into a master general agent agreement, which was terminated in 2013. In 2015, ABN brought an arbitration under the rules of the American Arbitration Association (the “AAA”) against AGLA, AIG and later American General Life Insurance Company, successor to AGLA (collectively, “American General”), asserting claims of intentional interference with business relationships, breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in connection with the agreement. Defendants counterclaimed for breach of contract and contractual indemnity. The sole arbitrator in the case made disclosures of certain relationships of her law firm with defendants and their subsidiaries. ABN asked no questions about her disclosures and she was accepted as arbitrator. In June 2016, the arbitrator dismissed AIG from the case. Thereafter, in September 2016, after ten days of testimony and other evidence, the arbitrator issued a Final Award, denying both sides’ claims for relief. After receiving the Award, ABN learned, through public records, of alleged undisclosed relationships between the arbitrator’s law firm and defendants’ alleged subsidiaries. ABN then moved in the California district court to vacate the Final Award due to the alleged incomplete disclosures. In June 2017, the district court granted the motion to vacate, finding that the arbitrator breached her duties of disclosure and investigation, and that the nondisclosures created a reasonable impression of bias, and that ABN did not waive its right to challenge the arbitrator. Defendants appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

The Ninth Circuit overturned the California district court’s decision, noting that “[g]iven the arbitrator’s disclosure that AIG was a former client of her firm, ABN had some duty to inquire about the nature of that relationship.” But the Ninth Circuit further noted that “ABN asked no questions and proceeded with the hearing.” According to the Court, “the laborious efforts required to discover the undisclosed relationships give credence to the reasonableness of the arbitrator’s investigation.” Finally, the Court held that “the undisclosed relationships, considered in the light of those the arbitrator did disclose, are insufficient to create a ‘[r]easonable impression of partiality.’” Thus, the Ninth Circuit reversed the California district court’s decision and remanded the case to the district court with instructions to enter judgment confirming the arbitration award.

American Brokerage Network and Cung Thai v. American General Life Insurance Co., No. 3:16-cv-06952 (9th Cir. Nov. 30, 2018).

This post written by Jeanne Kohler.

See our disclaimer.

Federal Court Denies Bifurcation of Contract Claims and Uberrimae Fidei and Late Notice Defenses in Reinsurance Dispute

by

A Michigan federal court declined to bifurcate a case involving a contract dispute between a ceding insurer, Amerisure, and its reinsurer, Transatlantic Re, in a case arising from underlying asbestos claims dating back to the early 1980’s.

Amerisure sued TransRe alleging that it failed to reimburse Amerisure under a facultative reinsurance agreement covering losses and loss expenses arising from underlying asbestos claim liabilities insured by Amerisure. For its part, TransRe alleged that Amerisure breached the “duty of utmost good faith” by failing to apprise TransRe of all relevant information in its underwriting of the facultative agreement, thereby voiding the agreement. TransRe also claimed that Amerisure’s claim is barred due to late notice.

Amerisure filed a motion to bifurcate the proceedings to address the contract issues first. TransRe opposed the motion arguing that even if the contract issues were resolved, the breach of duty of utmost good faith and late notice issues would remain to be addressed, and thus bifurcation would not result in a more efficient proceeding.

The trial judge referred the issue to a special master, who found that bifurcation was inappropriate, as a phased proceeding would not result in convenience to the parties or judicial efficiency. The report noted that much of the discovery involved on the contract issues would overlap with the issues involved in TransRe’s defense based on breach of the duty of utmost good faith, such as the underwriting intent and meaning of the applicable policy or reinsurance language. The report concluded, therefore, that phasing the proceedings might ultimately be less efficient, rather than more efficient, and recommended denial of the motion.

The judge accepted the special master’s recommendation and denied Amerisure’s motion.

Amerisure Mut. Ins. Co. v. Transatlantic Reinsurance Co., No. 2:18-cv-11966 (USDC E.D. Mich., Nov. 29, 2018 (Report and Recommendation of Special Master), Dec. 20, 2018 (adopting report)).

This post written by John Pitblado.

See our disclaimer.

Sixth Circuit Finds it Lacks Jurisdiction Over Dispute Regarding Proper Forum for Settlement of Fee Dispute

by

A dispute regarding attorney Steven Johnson’s right to fees from William Drake, an individual who hired Johnson to pursue a product liability claim, was made considerably more complicated by conflicting forum provisions in a contract with the attorney and the settlement agreement in the MDL that eventually resolved Drake’s product liability claim.

Drake received a hip implant that was later recalled. Drake hired Mr. Johnson to represent him in his claim against the manufacturer of the implant, signing a contract providing that fee disputes would be arbitrated in Texas. Drake later terminated Johnson and hired a new lawyer, who filed lawsuit against the manufacturer, which became part of an MDL. Drake’s claims were then settled by the manufacturer, and the settlement agreement specified the use of a special master to settle disputes regarding attorneys’ fees.

Johnson commenced an arbitration proceeding against Drake in Texas regarding his fees, and Drake initiated arbitration proceedings against Johnson before the special master regarding the same issues. The special master dismissed Drake’s arbitration proceeding because it was already pending in a different arbitral forum. The Texas arbitrator then issued an award in Johnson’s favor. Drake moved, in the Ohio federal district court handling the MDL, to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement and vacate the Texas arbitration award. The court granted to motion to enforce the settlement but did not decide whether to vacate the apparently conflicting Texas arbitration award, and Johnson appealed this decision to the Sixth Circuit.

The Sixth Circuit started and ended its consideration of the matter with the question of jurisdiction, which Johnson argued existed because (1) the district court’s decision was a final decision appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and (2) it was appealable under section 16 of the Federal Arbitration Act. The court disagreed. First, the court found that the motion to vacate the Texas arbitration award was one of the main issues before the court, and the district court’s failure to rule on that motion meant that there was no final resolution of the litigation on the merits. Second, the court found that section 16 of the FAA did not apply because the district court did not address the Texas arbitration award, rejecting an argument that it was implicitly vacated by the ruling enforcing the settlement. Lacking jurisdiction, the Sixth Circuit remanded the case to the district court with instructions that it consider whether the Texas arbitration award should be confirmed or vacated.

Drake v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., No. (6th Cir. Nov. 30, 2018)