Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

Applied Underwriters Defeats Motion for Summary Judgment in Suit Over Breach of Reinsurance Participation Agreement

by

Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company, Inc. (Applied) defeated a motion for summary judgment filed by Beemac Driver Management, LLC (Beemac), in a lawsuit precipitated by Beemac’s alleged failure to pay either the $142,797.91 due under a “reinsurance participation agreement,” or the $253,287 early cancellation fee that resulted when Beemac refused to pay the amount due. The court stated it was “apparent that calculation of the amount due pursuant to the parties’ agreement is not [] simple … [nor was it] at all apparent from the pleadings and evidence how the plaintiff calculated the amount due – only that the plaintiff claims there is an amount due and owing.” The court noted that Beemac’s argument rested on the premise that miscalculating the amount due “was a prior material breach of the agreement, excusing their own subsequent failure to perform,” but that Beemac offered no authority to support that position. In addition, Beemac offered no calculation of the correct amount it contended was due under the contract. On these facts, the court could not conclude as a matter of law that Applied’s billing, even if inaccurate, was a material breach.

Beemac also sought to strike the affidavit of Applied’s chief actuary regarding the factors Applied used to determine the amount due under the reinsurance participation agreement. Beemac argued that Applied either failed to disclose the expert witness prior to the expert disclosure deadline or, if the witness was not an expert, that her testimony concerned contract interpretation, which is determined by the court as a matter of law. The court disagreed, stating that although Applied’s chief actuary might be an expert, in this particular matter she was not providing her opinions and conclusions based on her experience, skill and training, as an “expert witness” would testify. Rather, she was testifying regarding her personal knowledge of her employer’s business practices, rendering her a lay opinion witness. As a result, the motion to strike her affidavit was denied. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Co., Inc. v. Beemac Driver Mgmt., LLC, Case No. 8:16-CV-382 (USDC D. Neb. Dec. 6, 2018).

This post written by Benjamin E. Stearns.

See our disclaimer.

Fifth Circuit Finds Waiver of Arbitration Where Motion to Dismiss Argued Merits, Omitted Mention of Arbitration, and Created Prejudice

by

A consumer (Forby) filed a proposed class action in Illinois state court alleging that One Technologies, L.P. (One Tech) failed to adequately disclose that consumers who accessed their “free” online credit score on the company’s website would be enrolled in a credit monitoring program and be charged a monthly fee. The case was removed and then transferred to the Northern District of Texas. One Tech filed a motion to dismiss in the Texas district court, seeking dismissal of all of Forby’s claims but omitting any mention of arbitration. After the district court partially denied One Tech’s motion to dismiss, Forby served requests for production, which prompted One Tech to file motions to compel arbitration and to stay discovery. After the court granted these motions, Forby appealed to the Fifth Circuit, arguing that the court erred in finding that One Tech did not waive its right to arbitration. The Fifth Circuit agreed with Forby and reversed the district court’s order compelling arbitration, finding that One Tech substantially invoked the judicial process by seeking a full dismissal on the merits, and caused prejudice to Forby by waiting thirteen months before moving to compel arbitration and by forcing Forby to re-litigate in arbitration the matters already decided by the district court in her favor. The court reasoned: “[a] party does not get to learn that the district court is not receptive to its arguments and then be allowed a second bite at the apple through arbitration.” Forby v. One Technologies, L.P., Case No. 17-10883 (5th Cir. Nov. 28, 2018).

This post written by Gail Jankowski.

See our disclaimer.

SDNY Compels Arbitration of Payment Obligation Dispute Under General Liability “Fronting” Policies

by

A New York district court has granted a motion to compel arbitration of matters arising out of general liability “fronting” policies issued by member companies of AIG. The policies were issued to Building Materials Holding Corporation (“BMHC”) and obligated AIG to “front” litigation costs incurred by BMHC’s additional insureds to defend third-party claims. BMHC was then required to reimburse AIG for such costs. The parties’ duties were further defined in a separate Payment Agreement (“Agreement”). AIG was to provide insurance under the policies, and BMHC agreed to pay its “Payment Obligation” to AIG, defined essentially as amounts AIG was required to front for claims covered under the polices. Pursuant to the Agreement, disputes as to the amount of any claim to be reimbursed by BMHC “must immediately be submitted to arbitration.” For any “other unresolved dispute arising out of this Agreement,” such dispute “must be submitted to arbitration.” The arbitrators were to “have exclusive jurisdiction over the entire matter in dispute, including any question as to its arbitrability.”

BMHC disputed whether certain costs paid by AIG were in fact covered under the policies. It refused to reimburse AIG for such amounts and sought declaratory relief in a California action. AIG filed a petition in the Southern District of New York to compel arbitration of the matters in the California action. BMHC argued that the disputed issues were not subject to arbitration. The SDNY identified two issues: (1) did the parties “clearly and unmistakably” reserve arbitrability issues for the arbitrators; and if not (2) is the California action subject to arbitration?

On the first issue, the court held that, under these facts, the “exclusive jurisdiction” language in the Agreement did not unequivocally reserve arbitrability issues for the arbitrators. Because a subsequent addendum to the Agreement contemplated that a court might in certain instances decide such issues, and the Agreement provided no guidance as to which arbitrability issues were reserved for arbitrators, the court found it had jurisdiction to decide whether the matters in the California action fall within the scope of the arbitration.

As to this second issue, however, the court found it “readily apparent” that the California action was subject to arbitration because the complaint was “clearly” predicated on a dispute over BMHC’s “Payment Obligation.” The court rejected BMHC’s attempt to recast the dispute as one involving insurance coverage issues to be determined before triggering any obligations under the Agreement. Even if there were coverage issues to be decided, the court found nothing in the Policies foreclosing arbitration of coverage issues necessary to resolve payment obligations. The court also declined to follow factually similar decisions by the Sixth and Ninth Circuits, finding the arbitration clauses in those cases to be materially different.

National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA v. BMC Stock Holdings, Inc., No. 18-CV-5777 (USDC S.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 2018)

This post written by Alex Silverman.

See our disclaimer.

California Appellate Court Holds Parties Cannot Contract Around Service Requirements of Hague Service Convention

by

Changzhou Sinotype Technology Co., Ltd. (“Changzhou”) is a Chinese company that develops fonts. Changzhou and Los Angeles-based investment firm Rockefeller Technology Investments (Asia) VII (“Rockefeller”), entertained the idea of a joint venture to create a Silicon Valley-based company to develop and market international fonts.

The parties signed what Rockefeller characterized as a memorandum of understanding, and which Rockefeller believed was binding. However, Changzhou characterized the document as a “bei wang lu,” a type of memorandum understood in Chinese to merely record the current state of negotiations, and that the signing of a “bei wang lu” “does not create a binding contract.

After negotiations ultimately broke off, Rockefeller initiated an arbitration, citing the memorandum’s arbitration provision. Changzhou did not respond to the demand for arbitration, nor did it appear or participate in the arbitration Rockefeller filed in California. The arbitrator entered a default award in excess of $414 million against Changzhou.

Rockefeller brought an action to confirm the award in California state court. It effected service on Changzhou in China via mail, as had been “agreed” in the memorandum. Changzhou did not appear in the action, and judgment confirming the award entered in Rockefeller’s favor.

Approximately 15 months later, Changzhou moved to set aside the judgment on the grounds that it had never entered into a binding contract with Rockefeller, had not agreed to contractual arbitration, and had not been served with the summons and petition to confirm the arbitration award in the manner required by the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters (the “Hague Service Convention”).

The court denied Changzhou’s petition to vacate, finding service was effective in the action to confirm the award, even though it had not complied with the Hague Service Convention, as the parties were free to contract around the Convention, and had done so.

Changzhou appealed and a California intermediate appellate court reversed, finding that parties may not ‘contract around’ the Hague Service Convention. “[T]he Hague Service Convention does not permit Chinese citizens to be served by mail, nor does it allow parties to set their own terms of service by contract. [Changzhou] therefore was never validly served with process.”

The Appellate Court also did not credit the argument that Changzhou waited too long to challenge service, finding that a lack of personal jurisdiction is not curable, and that “[t]here is a wealth of California authority for the proposition that a void judgment is vulnerable to direct or collateral attack ‘at any time.’” (emphasis added).

Rockefeller Technology Investments (Asia) VII v. Changzhou Sinotype Technology Co., Ltd., No. B272170 (Cal. Ct. App. June 1, 2018)

This post written by John Pitblado.

See our disclaimer.

California District Court Denies Motion to Vacate FINRA Arbitration Award

by

A California district court recently denied a motion to vacate an arbitration award which had denied a plaintiff’s claims brought before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”).

The background of this case can be found here. In sum, in 2005, plaintiff Winnie Fang delivered certificates for shares of stock in Peet’s Coffee & Tea, Inc. (“Peet’s”) to Merrill Lynch that her deceased husband had previously held. In 2010, Fang was notified that the California Controller had received the Peet’s stock as unclaimed property. Fang then commenced an action against Peet’s and others in California state court for allegedly mishandling her investment, which was resolved by a “partial settlement.” Later, in 2015, Fang brought a FINRA arbitration against Merrill Lynch for breach of fiduciary duties and breach of contract. In February 2018, a FINRA arbitration panel issued an award, denying Fang’s claims in their entirety, and ordered her to pay $6,000 in expert witness fees incurred by Merrill Lynch. In the award, the panel detailed the prior proceedings. Among others, the panel noted that a hearing had been scheduled in October 2016, but that Fang failed to submit pre-hearing materials per an order of the panel. Instead, according to the panel, Fang filed an ex parte motion to continue the hearing on the grounds that Merrill Lynch had not provided certain discovery, and that Fang was planning to file a class action on the same claims, even though Fang had not filed any discovery motion by the deadline in the panel’s scheduling order, and had not filed a class action case. The panel denied Fang’s motion for a continuance. Fang then filed a motion to dismiss her claims without prejudice, and a motion for reconsideration of the denial of the continuance. The panel maintained the October 2016 hearing date, but said that it would take up Fang’s motions at the arbitration hearing. However, just before the hearing, Fang filed an action in California federal court, with a motion for a temporary restraining order to stop the FINRA arbitration for alleged procedural violations. The California district court denied a TRO. Fang then appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed the district court’s order. While the court proceedings were ongoing, the arbitration also proceeded. Fang and her counsel failed to appear at the October 2016 hearing. Merrill Lynch did appear, and an evidentiary hearing took place under FINRA rules. Merrill Lynch then sent the panel a copy of the Ninth Circuit decision affirming the denial of the TRO, and Fang submitted a “responsive” document that the panel interpreted to be another motion to dismiss without prejudice. The panel then suspended the arbitration until the California district court decided class certification in the case. The California district court, however, had already stayed that case, at the parties’ joint request, to allow for completion of the arbitration. Merrill Lynch then made a motion for the issuance of an award in the arbitration. A hearing took place in January 2018 on that motion and Fang’s new motion to dismiss. At the hearing, Fang’s lawyer said he could not attend the October 2016 hearing because “he had to appear in a matter for the United Nations,” which the panel noted had not been raised in his continuance papers. The panel then denied Fang’s motion to dismiss and issued the February 2018 award. Fang then moved in the California district court to vacate the award. Although she mentioned all four grounds in Section 10(a) of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) as a basis for overturning the panel’s award, the motion was based mainly on the claims that the award was the product of corruption, fraud and undue means, and exceeded the arbitrators’ authority.

The California district court, in denying the motion to vacate the award, noted that “courts may vacate an arbitrator’s decision ‘only in very unusual circumstances’” and that the party seeking to vacate the award bears a high “burden of establishing that one of the grounds . . . justifies vacating the award.” The court noted that Fang chose not to litigate the arbitration she had voluntarily commenced, and that there was no evidence indicating that the arbitrators were corrupt or partial to Merrill Lynch or that there was an actual bias against her, nor were there any facts that might create a reasonable impression of bias or otherwise indicate “evident corruption.” The court also held that Fang’s argument that the arbitrators exceeded their powers was also unavailing. In this regard, Fang argued that the panel misapplied FINRA rules to proceed with the arbitration. However, the court noted that interpretation of the FINRA rules is up to the arbitrators to decide. The court also found that Fang failed to show that the arbitrators somehow exceeded the bounds of the agreement that empowered them to hear Fang’s arbitration demand, and that Fang did not identify a FINRA rule stating that the arbitration should have been terminated after she expressed a desire to file a class action lawsuit, or any case that supports that proposition. The court noted that Fang was perfectly free to withdraw her claims at any time under FINRA rules, but the consequence would have been a withdrawal with prejudice, “which apparently did not suit Fang’s litigation plans.” Finally, the court held that Fang had also not shown that the arbitrators were “completely irrational” or guilty of “a manifest disregard of law.”

Fang v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., No. 16-cv-06071 (N.D. Ca. Nov. 23, 2018).

This post written by Jeanne Kohler.

See our disclaimer.