Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

FOURTH CIRCUIT HOLDS ARBITRATION CLAUSE UNENFORCEABLE WHEN IT FORBIDS ARBITRATOR FROM APPLYING THE APPLICABLE LAW

by

This case involves a class action filed in a Virginia district court against Delbert Services Corporation, the servicing agent of certain loans, for which the plaintiffs claimed that Delbert’s unfair debt collection practices violated federal law. The lender was Western Sky Financial, LLC, an online lender owned by a member of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and located on the Cheyenne River Indian Reservation in South Dakota. Delbert sought to compel arbitration in response to the plaintiffs’ claims.

The loan agreements at issue required resolution of all disputes through arbitration, but stated that the agreement was “subject solely to the exclusive laws and jurisdiction of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe” and that “[n]either this Agreement nor Lender is subject to the laws of any state of the United States of America”.

The Virginia district court upheld the arbitration clause in the loan agreements. However, although recognizing that the FAA establishes a liberal policy favoring arbitration agreements, the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s ruling, holding that the arbitration clause was unenforceable. The Court noted that “[t]he agreement purportedly fashions a system of alternative dispute resolution while simultaneously rendering that system all but impotent through a categorical rejection of the requirements of state and federal law. The FAA does not protect the sort of arbitration agreement that unambiguously forbids an arbitrator from even applying the applicable law.” The Fourth Circuit further noted that parties are free within bounds to select a choice of law clause, but that Delbert was seeking to use the arbitration process to avoid state and federal law.

Hayes v. Delbert Services Corp., No. 15-1170 (9th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016).

This post written by Jeanne Kohler.

See our disclaimer.

COURT DENIES MOTION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD, FINDING ARBITRATION APPEALS PROCESS WAS VALID, AND THAT PANELS’ RULINGS DID NOT MANIFESTLY DISREGARD LAW

by

Plaintiffs used a hay treatment product manufactured and sold by Cargill, Inc. A dispute arose between them concerning whether Cargill’s product caused serious injury to one of the plaintiffs. After protracted litigation concerning the arbitrability of the dispute, it was referred to arbitration before the National Grain and Feed Association (“NGFA”). The panel found in Cargill’s favor and plaintiffs appealed under the NGFA Arbitration Rules, challenging the arbitrators’ qualifications, evidentiary rulings, and other aspects of their decisionmaking. The NGFA Appeals Committee affirmed the decision and award issued by the original panel.

Plaintiffs brought an action to vacate the award. In support of its application, plaintiffs argued, among other things, that the arbitrators were biased in Cargill’s favor, that the arbitrators were not qualified to hear the dispute, that the structure of the NGFA arbitral process was flawed, and that both panels’ decisions were erroneous as a matter of law. The court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate and granted Cargill’s cross-motion to confirm because: (a) plaintiffs had waived their right to challenge the arbitrators’ qualifications or the NGFA process by not raising these issues until after the proceedings; (b) Cargill’s involvement in NGFA’s annual convention, as well as the amount of membership dues it paid to the NGFA, did not evidence bias; (c) the panels’ failure to issue their decisions within the time period referenced by certain NGFA Arbitration Rules did not warrant vacatur, particularly since certain delays were attributable to plaintiffs; and (d) the panels’ evidentiary and legal rulings did not amount to manifest disregard of the law, as such rulings did not ignore binding precedent. Van Buren v. Cargill, Inc., No. 1:10-cv-00701 (USDC W.D.N.Y. Jan. 19, 2016).

This post written by Rob DiUbaldo.

See our disclaimer.

SECOND CIRCUIT REVERSES AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES FOR CONFIRMATION OF ARBITRAL AWARD

by

The Second Circuit reversed a lower court’s decision granting attorneys’ fees for the cost of confirming an arbitration award. The dispute arose out of a shipping contract for overseas shipping of acrylonitrile, and the defendant in arbitration prevailed. Following arbitration, the district court awarded the prevailing party its fees in seeking to confirm the arbitration award under a provision in the charter agreement awarding fees for a breach of contract. The Second Circuit reversed, finding first that there was no breach of the agreement by the party losing in arbitration. Further, there could be no breach of the agreement by resisting the arbitral award’s confirmation—and even if there was—such a provision would be unenforceable. By agreeing to arbitrate, the parties “also consented to confirmation of the arbitral award in any court of competent jurisdiction,” which the court found to be an effective incorporation of the Federal Arbitration Act into the contract. The Second Circuit went further, however, in holding that any agreement purporting to limit the ability to challenge an arbitration award would be unenforceable because it would “divest the courts of their statutory and common-law authority to review both the substance of the awards and the arbitral process for compliance with § 10(a) and the manifest disregard standard.” Zurich American Insurance Co. v. Team Tankers A.S., No. 14-4036-cv (2d Cir. Jan. 28, 2016).

This post written by Zach Ludens.

See our disclaimer.

COURT DENIES MOTION TO STAY FURTHER REINSURANCE ARBITRATION PENDING APPEAL CONCERNING INITIAL ARBITRATION

by

At the end of January, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan denied a motion to stay arbitration pending appeal. The case involves a reinsurance dispute between National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh and members of the Meadowbrook Insurance Group. Following an initial arbitration, National Union moved to confirm the award. The court confirmed in part but vacated the portion of the arbitration award dealing with prejudgment interest. As a result, the court ordered the parties to arbitrate the issue of prejudgment interest. Both parties appealed, and National Union filed a motion to amend the judgment and a motion to stay the subsequent arbitration pending appeal.

According to National Union, the parties had already arbitrated the amount and interest in the first arbitration and the district court should have confirmed, vacated, or modified the awards—rather than submitting that question to a new arbitration—which National Union is appealing to the Sixth Circuit. However, the district court noted that the arbitration panel found in favor of National Union “in part because Meadowbrook failed to produce documentation” that would allow it to compute damages and prejudgment interest. Therefore, the district court reasoned, this issue had not already been arbitrated, and National Union was unlikely to succeed on the merits of its appeal. For this reason, among others, the court denied both National Union’s motion to amend the judgment and a motion to stay the subsequent arbitration pending appeal. Star Insurance Co. v. National Union Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, Case No. 14-12915 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 27, 2016).

This post written by Zach Ludens.

See our disclaimer.

THIRD CIRCUIT FINDS THAT ALLEGED LEGAL ERRORS DO NOT JUSTIFY VACATUR OF ARBITRATION AWARD

by

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently confirmed an arbitration award in a dispute concerning the ownership of certain music rights, rejecting the argument that alleged legal errors constituted sufficient grounds to vacate the award. The underlying arbitration involved a dispute between The Pullman Group, LLC and its owner, David Pullman (collectively, “Pullman”), and the estates of John Whitehead and Gene McFadden, who were “an integral part of the Philadelphia music scene in the 1970s.” Pullman entered into a contract with Whitehead and McFadden to purchase their song catalogue, but the sale was never finalized. After the musicians passed away, Pullman and the estates agreed to arbitrate their dispute over ownership of the catalogue. An arbitration panel ruled in favor of the estates, and Pullman brought an action in federal court to vacate the award on the grounds that the panel had committed various legal errors.

The district court denied Pullman’s motion to vacate the award, which the Third Circuit affirmed. The court held that mere errors of law are insufficient to warrant vacatur of arbitration award, and that such outcome is only justified where an arbitrator’s legal error is so substantial that a party was deprived of a fair hearing. In this case, that the arbitration panel’s application of New York law and decision to exclude certain testimony was well-founded, and did not arise to the level of misconduct required to vacate the award. The Third Circuit rejected Pullman’s alternative argument that the panel’s ruling amounted to “manifest disregard of the law,” finding that even if this doctrine is still a viable ground to vacate an arbitration award (which the court declined to address), it would not apply because the panel’s decision did not ignore binding legal precedent. Whitehead v. The Pullman Group, LLC, Nos. 15-1627 & 15-1628 (3d Cir. Dec. 10, 2015).

This post written by Rob DiUbaldo.

See our disclaimer.