Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

Third Circuit Joins Other Circuits, Holds Uber Drivers Are Not Exempt From FAA

by

In Singh v. Uber Technologies Inc., the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, in a precedential opinion, affirmed district court orders granting defendant Uber Technologies Inc.’s motion to compel arbitration, concluding that the plaintiffs were not exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). In reaching its decision, the court noted it is joining other circuit courts in concluding that Uber drivers do not belong to the class of workers exempt from arbitration under section 1 of the FAA as “workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.”

The FAA compels federal courts to enforce a wide range of arbitration agreements, but it does not apply to arbitration agreements in the contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce. The case before the Third Circuit was a consolidated appeal involving two cases brought against Uber by its drivers. Uber filed motions to compel arbitration in both cases, relying on the terms of its agreements with the drivers, which included a broad arbitration clause.

In plaintiff Singh’s case, which was a putative class action, the district court granted a previous motion to compel arbitration filed earlier in the case by Uber, concluding that section 1 of the FAA applied only to transportation workers who move goods, not those who carry passengers. The Third Circuit reversed that earlier decision, concluding that the exemption also applies to transportation workers who transport passengers “so long as they are engaged in interstate commerce or in work so closely related thereto as to be in practical effect part of it,” and remanded the case to the district court to determine whether the Singh class of workers were engaged in interstate commerce. After limited discovery related to that issue, the district court concluded that the plaintiffs were not engaged in foreign or interstate commerce, and compelled arbitration. In affirming the decision of the district court, the Third Circuit concluded that interstate commerce was not central to the work of Uber drivers, and the exemption in section 1 of the FAA does not apply. The district court orders compelling arbitration were affirmed.

Singh v. Uber Technologies Inc., No. 21-3234 (3d Cir. May 4, 2023).

Seventh Circuit Affirms District Court’s Order Denying Application to Vacate Arbitration Award

by

Donald Kinsella was an employee of defendant Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations LLC. In June 2013, he suffered a work-related injury resulting in his disability and receipt of disability benefits for three years. Baker Hughes’ human resources department worked with Kinsella to look for jobs at the company that would meet his accommodation request and physical limitations. Months later, Kinsella received a termination letter from Baker Hughes citing a failure to apply for a position. He eventually filed an action in federal court alleging failure to accommodate his disability, discriminatory discharge, and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Kinsella’s employment agreement included an arbitration clause, and the district court granted the parties’ joint motion to stay the federal action pending arbitration. The district court then dismissed the action without prejudice with leave to reinstate within seven days of the arbitration ruling.

The matter proceeded to arbitration, and the arbitrator issued an award granting summary judgment for Baker Hughes on all claims. Kinsella filed an application with the district court to reinstate his case and to vacate the arbitration award with regard to his failure-to-accommodate claim. He sought to vacate the award under section 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act contending that the arbitrator exceeded his powers by requiring illegitimate elements of proof on the failure-to-accommodate claim. The district court reinstated Kinsella’s action, but it denied the application to vacate the award and entered a judgment of dismissal. In affirming the district court’s denial of vacatur, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals first noted that under section 10(a)(4) of the FAA, an arbitration award may be vacated “where the arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final, and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made.” The court rejected Kinsella’s contentions that the arbitrator incorrectly interpreted the ADA and exceeded his authority by introducing “an extra element of proof into a claim.” The court found the arbitrator did not exceed his powers and affirmed the district court’s denial of Kinsella’s application to vacate the award.

Kinsella v. Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, LLC, No. 22-2007 (7th Cir. May 8, 2023).

En Banc Eleventh Circuit Overrules Prior Interpretation of New York Convention

by

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has overruled long-standing precedent and joined the Second, Third, Fifth, and Seventh Circuits to hold that the grounds for vacatur of an arbitral award are set out in domestic law (specifically Chapter 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act), not the New York Convention, where the United States is the primary jurisdiction under the New York Convention.

Since 1998, the Eleventh Circuit had held that a party seeking vacatur of an arbitral award issued under the New York Convention could only rely on the grounds for vacatur set out in Article V of the New York Convention. But that decision and a subsequent Eleventh Circuit ruling following it were “wrong” and “outliers” according to the Eleventh Circuit. The Eleventh Circuit explained that its prior decisions failed to properly analyze the text of the New York Convention or the FAA. “[N]either Article V of the [New York] Convention nor § 207 of the FAA provides the grounds on which a court in the primary jurisdiction can vacate an arbitral award.” Instead, “the primary jurisdiction’s domestic law acts as a gap-filler and provides the vacatur grounds for an arbitral award.” When the United States is the primary jurisdiction under the New York Convention, Chapter 1 of the FAA is that gap-filler. Thus, a party seeking to vacate an award subject to the New York Convention can rely on Chapter 1 of the FAA rather than Article V of the New York Convention when the United States is the primary jurisdiction.

In the case at bar, the district court had correctly followed the Eleventh Circuit’s prior, binding precedent and therefore not considered a challenge to the arbitration award at issue that was based on Chapter 1 of the FAA. The Eleventh Circuit therefore vacated the district court’s award and remanded for consideration of that challenge in light of its new precedent.

Corporación AIC, S.A. v. Hidroeléctrica Santa Rita S.A., No. 20-13039 (11th Cir. Apr. 13, 2023).

First Circuit Weighs in on FAA’s Transportation Worker Exception

by

The First Circuit Court of Appeals recently clarified the standards for invoking the “transportation worker” exception to the Federal Arbitration Act. The court noted that fact-finding on that exception should focus on the frequency with which workers transport goods as part of their duties (regularly or only occasionally) and whether that transportation constitutes engaging in interstate commerce.

Sara Fraga worked as a merchandiser for Premium Retail Services Inc., a company that supported brands at their stores by having its merchandisers create advertising displays, update pricing and signage, and perform a number of other tasks. Premium and Fraga agreed that Fraga would receive marketing and promotional materials at her home and bring them to stores as part of her job. But Fraga and Premium disagreed about how frequently Fraga did so. Fraga claimed she received materials at her home and transported them to retail stores almost daily while Premium claimed it sent materials to merchandisers’ homes rarely.

Fraga filed a putative class action lawsuit against Premium under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Massachusetts law. She claimed that Premium failed to pay her and other merchandisers for overtime, time spent traveling to and between worksites, and work performed before arriving at a worksite, such as sorting and preparing display materials.

Premium moved to compel arbitration under Fraga’s employment contract, which also included a class action waiver. Fraga opposed Premium’s motion on the ground that she fell within the FAA’s exception for transportation workers. She argued that the FAA therefore did not apply and that Massachusetts law, which prohibits class action waivers, governed the dispute.

The district court denied Premium’s motion. It concluded that Fraga had plausibly alleged that she fell within the FAA’s exemption for transportation workers.

The First Circuit vacated and remanded. It concluded that further fact-finding was needed to determine whether Fraga and her co-workers fell within the transportation worker exception.

The First Circuit also provided guidance on what facts would allow Fraga to invoke the exception. In short, the First Circuit instructed the district court’s further fact-finding to focus on the work in which Fraga and other merchandisers were actually engaged rather than exclusively or even primarily focusing on the industry in which they worked (i.e., whether they worked in the transportation industry or another industry). The First Circuit emphasized that the “frequency” that Fraga and other merchandisers in the putative class worked on transporting goods was a key question (particularly given that the parties disputed the frequency that Fraga transported goods). If Fraga did not frequently deliver materials to retailers, then Fraga’s FAA exemption argument fails and the matter should be referred to arbitration. Conversely, if sorting, loading, and then transporting materials to retailers were frequently performed job duties, then the exemption would be met if the merchandisers were engaged in interstate commerce.

With respect to interstate commerce, the First Circuit noted that an employee need not necessarily drive across state lines to be engaged in interstate commerce for purposes of the FAA’s relevant exception. At the same time, intrastate deliveries of goods that previously traveled in interstate commerce might not be enough to meet the exception. The First Circuit instructed the district court to analogize this case to its relevant decisions based on the fact-finding that needed to be performed to determine whether interstate commerce existed.

Fraga v. Premium Retail Services, Inc., No. 22-1101 (1st Cir. Mar. 3, 2023).

Mississippi Supreme Court Affirms Denial of Motion to Compel Arbitration of Wrongful Death Suit

by

Noting that the Federal Arbitration Act applies to nursing home admission agreements that include a mandatory arbitration provision, the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s order denying Belhaven Senior Care LLC’s motion to compel arbitration of a wrongful death and negligence suit brought by the administrator and estate of a former patient. The court agreed with the trial court that the party who signed the admission agreement on behalf of the patient lacked the legal authority to bind the patient to the agreement.

When Mary Hayes was admitted to the Belhaven nursing home in November 2018, her daughter, Betty Smith (the administrator of her mother’s estate), executed an admission agreement on behalf of her mother that included a provision for binding arbitration of all claims related to Hayes’ residency at the nursing home. Hayes died in June 2020, and Smith filed a complaint against Belhaven in state court alleging claims for wrongful death, negligence, gross negligence, medical malpractice, and a statutory survival claim. Belhaven moved to compel arbitration, relying on the arbitration clause in the admission agreement. The trial court declined to compel arbitration because Smith did not have the legal authority to bind her mother to the admission agreement.

On appeal, Belhaven argued that under the Health-Care Decisions Act, Smith acted as a “statutory health care surrogate” for her mother when she signed the admission agreement and is estopped from denying the validity of the arbitration clause because she and Hayes benefited from the agreement, and Hayes was a third-party beneficiary. In rejecting Belhaven’s arguments, the court noted that it applies a two-prong inquiry in evaluating arbitration clauses, which includes first determining if there is a valid arbitration agreement, and if so, if the parties’ dispute is within the scope of the arbitration agreement. The court made clear that its focus in this case “rests wholly on the arbitration agreement’s validity.” The court concluded that the capacity to make health care decisions is presumed under the act, and a health care surrogate may only make health care decisions when the adult patient has been determined by the primary physician to lack capacity. Since Hayes was not evaluated by a physician when admitted, and was not found to lack capacity, Belhaven failed to prove the requirements of the act. The court then found that because Smith did not qualify as her mother’s health care surrogate, there was no valid contract. The court further found that Smith was not estopped from contesting the validity of the arbitration clause in the admission agreement. The court affirmed the trial court’s decision not to compel arbitration and remanded the matter.

Belhaven Senior Care, LLC v. Smith, No. 2022-CA-00050-SCT (Miss. Apr. 6, 2023).