Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

PENNSYLVANIA FEDERAL COURT CONFIRMS ARBITRATION AWARD IN FAVOR OF PHILADELPHIA UNION SOCCER TEAM IN WRONGFUL TERMINATION SUIT WITH FORMER COACH

by

A Pennsylvania federal court recently confirmed an arbitrator’s decision in a wrongful termination suit which held in favor of the Philadelphia Union soccer team, finding it did not violate former head coach Piotr Nowak’s contractual rights when the team fired him in 2012.

In the order confirming the award, and denying Nowak’s motion to vacate it, the court noted that a federal court’s review of an arbitration award “gives extreme deference” to the arbitrator’s decision and does not “second guess but instead presume[s] the reasoned award is enforceable”.

In the motion to vacate the award, Nowak claimed that the arbitrator was biased and made factual judgments from what Nowak claimed was hearsay evidence in testimony by witnesses. However, the court found that the record revealed that the arbitrator did not misapply the law, noting that the award itself highlighted sufficient independent evidence supporting the arbitrator’s conclusions, including witness testimony from former players, a trainer and Nowak himself. It also found that the award, supported by ample record evidence, was not completely irrational. Finally, the court found that there was no evidence of bias or impartiality on the part of the arbitrator. Thus, because Nowak did not establish any ground for vacatur, the court denied the motion to vacate and granted the motion to confirm the arbitration award.

Piotr Nowak v. Pennsylvania Professional Soccer, LLC, et al., No. 12-4165 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 11, 2016).

This post written by Jeanne Kohler.

See our disclaimer.

WASHINGTON ADOPTS NEW RULES REGARDING CREDIT FOR REINSURANCE

by

The Office of the Insurance Commissioner for Washington State recently adopted rules that amend the existing Credit for Reinsurance rules within the state. In addition, that office adopted new rules to conform Washington’s rules regarding credit for reinsurance to the NAIC Credit for Reinsurance Model Regulation and amendments made by the 2015 legislative session to the credit for reinsurance laws. The new rules went into effect on January 2, 2016.

Washington Insurance Commissioner Matter No. R 2015-09.

This post written by Whitney Fore, a law clerk at Carlton Fields in Washington, DC.

See our disclaimer.

NEW YORK FEDERAL BANKRUPTCY COURT FINDS INSURANCE INSOLVENCY PROCEEDING DOES NOT “REVERSE – PREEMPT” BANKRUPTCY COURT JURISDICTION

by

In a recent adversary proceeding in the chapter 11 case involving Ames Department Stores, Inc. (“Ames”), Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company (“Lumbermen’s”) argued that under the McCarran-Ferguson Act, the issues in dispute between it and Ames should be decided in Illinois state court as part of Lumbermens’ insolvency proceedings.

The procedural history and the issues in the case between Ames and Lumbermens can be found here. In short, Ames filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy in New York in 2001. In 2006, a dispute between Lumbermens and Ames commenced, which centered around the ownership of an approximate $8 million trust account. By 2012, Lumbermens entered state rehabilitation proceedings in Illinois. Lumbermens’ rehabilitator challenged the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction over the adversary proceeding in New York federal court, arguing for the issues to be addressed in Illinois state court as part of Lumbermens’ ongoing insolvency proceeding. The court granted the rehabilitator’s motion to withdraw reference, and requested a report and recommendation on Lumbermens’ jurisdictional motion from a New York federal bankruptcy court.

The New York bankruptcy court first found that it had authority to hear all the claims at issue. Next, it determined whether the McCarran-Ferguson Act applied to “reverse – preempt” federal law. The court utilized a three part analysis to determine whether the McCarran-Ferguson Act applies and whether a federal statute can be reverse preempted by a state law. First, the court considered whether the Bankruptcy Code, the federal law at issue, specifically relates to the business of insurance, and concluded that it does not. Next, the court considered whether the state law at issue relates to the business of insurance, finding that the Illinois statute, relegating jurisdiction to the Illinois state court, was to ensure orderly and predictable liquidations of insurance companies. Thus, the court found that the state law at issue was enacted for the purpose of regulating the business of insurance. Finally, with respect to the third prong, whether allowing the case to proceed in federal bankruptcy court would “impair, invalidate, or supersede” Illinois state law, the court found that the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction would not contravene Illinois law in any meaningful way, because any bankruptcy court judgment would remain subject to the priority scheme of the Illinois insurance insolvency proceeding. Therefore, the court held that hearing the adversary proceeding in federal bankruptcy court would not impair, invalidate or supersede Illinois insurance law, and thus, found that the Bankruptcy Code was not reverse – preempted by McCarran-Ferguson.

In re Ames Department Stores Inc., et al., No. 01-42217 (REG) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Dec. 7, 2015).

This post written by Jeanne Kohler.

See our disclaimer.

GEORGIA APPELLATE COURT HOLDS MALPRACTICE COVERAGE SUIT MUST BE ARBITRATED

by

The Court of Appeals of Georgia recently affirmed a trial court’s ruling compelling arbitration in a malpractice coverage dispute. McLarens Young International Inc. (McLarens) and American Safety Casualty Insurance Company (ASCIC) shared a claims handling agreement (CHA) that required McLarens to provide the insurer with claims management and adjustment services for ASCIC policies issued under a Lawyers Professional Liability Program. Under one of those policies, ASCIC was required to pay the $2 million policy limits to satisfy a malpractice settlement. ASCIC then sought reimbursement from its reinsurer, Excalibur Reinsurance Corp. (Excalibur), and the reinsurer paid.

Both McLarens and Excalibur filed a demand for arbitration against McLarens for a claim of negligent oversight of the underlying claim. McLarens countered in the trial court that the arbitration demand was outside the scope of the CHA’s arbitration provision. Both the trial court and the appellate court disagreed, holding that “the dispute pertains solely to whether McLarens is required to indemnify ASCIC under the terms of the CHA, and there is no greater or lesser right to indemnification because Excalibur has been inserted into the proceedings.” Because of the Reinsurance Agreement with ASCIC, Excalibur is merely subrogated to any right to indemnification that ASCIC may have against McLarens under the CHA due to the negligent handling of the claim. The appellate court held that the scope of the suit remains the same as if it were only between McLarens and ASCIC and, thus, is within the scope of the arbitration clause.

McLarens Young International, Inc. v. American Safety Casualty Insurance Co., et al., No. A15A0932 (Ga. App., 4th Div. Nov. 20, 2015).

This post written by Whitney Fore, a law clerk at Carlton Fields in Washington, DC.

See our disclaimer.

DELAWARE FEDERAL COURT CONFIRMS ARBITRATION AWARD IN COMMERCIAL DISPUTE, FINDING THAT THE FAA STANDARD, AND NOT THE DELAWARE UNIFORM ARBITRATION ACT, GOVERNED THE PARTY’S CHALLENGE

by

Roquette Freres, S.A. and Solazyme, Inc. entered into a Joint Venture Operating Agreement (the “JVOA”), which was established for the purpose of “the research and development, manufacture, distribution, sales, marketing and support” of certain products. The JVOA contained an arbitration provision that required disputes arising out of or connected with the agreement to be resolved under the “Arbitration Rules of the Center for Public Resources in New York”.  The JVOA further provided that the arbitration be conducted “according to the laws of the State of Delaware” and that the agreement was “governed and construed in accordance with” Delaware law.

After the arbitration panel ruled in Solazyme’s favor, Roquette moved to vacate the award under Delaware law. Solazyme counterclaimed for confirmation of the award, arguing that the standard set forth in the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) governed Roquette’s challenge.  As a threshold matter, the court found that because the JVOA did not specifically reference the Delaware Arbitration Act, and Roquette did not file its action in the Delaware Court of Chancery (as contemplated by the statute), the FAA controlled.  Applying the standard set forth by the FAA, the court confirmed the panel’s award and denied Roquette’s motion to vacate because:  (1) the panel’s interpretation of the time period in which to render an award, which Roquette argued had not been strictly adhered to, was a procedural issue that required broad deference under the statute and was rationally derived from the JVOA and CPR rules; (2) the panel’s consideration of extrinsic evidence was necessary to resolve the issues in dispute, and thus permissible; (3) alleged “public policy” considerations did not provide the court with a basis to vacate the panel’s ruling as a matter of law; and (4) the relief crafted by the panel, though broad in scope, was based upon the language of the JVOA, and thus within the panel’s authority.  Roquette Freres, S.A. v. Solazyme, Inc., No. 1:14-cv-01442 (USDC D.Del. Dec. 21, 2015).

This post written by Rob DiUbaldo.
See our disclaimer.