Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

ALASKA’S DIRECTOR OF INSURANCE LISTS ELIGIBLE SURPLUS LINES INSURERS

by

On July 13, 2015, the director of Alaska’s Division of Insurance published a list of surplus lines insurers that are eligible to write non-admitted business within the state. The Non-admitted and Reinsurance Reform Act (“NRRA”) identified the eligibility requirements that Alaska may impose on a company to be an eligible surplus lines insurer. An insurer is deemed ineligible and removed from the list if it does not meet all of the NRRA and domestic state requirements. All alien insurers that are on the NAIC’s Quarterly Listing of Alien Insurers are eligible to write non-admitted business in Alaska.

Three statuses were assigned to the various insurers included on the director’s list. Those companies that are “white listed” are foreign companies that meet the NRRA and domestic state requirements. “IID listed” insurers are alien companies that are on the NAIC’s Quarterly Listing of Alien Insurers. Finally, “listing approved” insurers are alien companies that are not on the NAIC’s Quarterly Listing of Alien Insurers but are approved by Alaska.

Alaska Bulletin B 15-06, effective July 13, 2015.

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

See our disclaimer.

NEW YORK APPELLATE COURT AFFIRMS EVIDENTIARY RULING IN FAVOR OF CEDENT

by

In a dispute regarding reinsurance coverage for the settlement of asbestos-related claims for nearly a billion dollars, on October 29, 2015, a New York appeals panel affirmed a New York state trial court decision, which denied the reinsurers’ motion for a ruling that the reasonableness of the cedent’s allocation of all settlement dollars to asbestos-insurance claims is properly the subject of evidence at trial. The court noted that in a prior appeal in the case, the Court of Appeals, New York’s high court, denied the cedent’s motion for summary judgment, in part, finding issues of fact as to 1) whether the cedent, “in allocating the settlement amount, reasonably attributed nothing to so-called ‘bad faith’ claims against it”, and 2) whether “certain claims were given unreasonable values for settlement purposes”. (We reported on the Court of Appeals decision on April 1, 2013.) Thus, the court held that the trial court correctly found that the reinsurers’ motion for a ruling allowing evidence on the reasonableness of the cedent’s allocation of the entire settlement to asbestos-insurance claims was contrary to the Court of Appeals decision, which limited the triable issues to two issues.

United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. American Re-Insurance Co., No. 604517/02 (N.Y. App. Div. Oct. 29, 2015).

This post written by Jeanne Kohler.

See our disclaimer.

DISTRICT COURT RECOGNIZES THE VIABILITY OF MANIFEST DISREGARD OF LAW DOCTRINE IN THE SECOND CIRCUIT

by

The Eastern District of New York recently denied plaintiff’s request to vacate an arbitration award in a contractual dispute between Incredible Foods Group, LLC, (“IFG”) and Unifoods, S.A. de C.V., (“UF”) over a shared Sub-License Agreement (the “Agreement”). Pursuant to the Agreement, plaintiff and sub-licensee IFG were licensed to “manufacture, market, distribute and sell” a fruit beverage in various states throughout the United States. IFG identified an American manufacturer to manufacture the beverage, and sub-licensor UF approved the selection. Shortly after manufacturing commenced, the bottles containing the beverage bulged and leaked, affecting sales.

Once it was determined that the presence of yeast at the manufacturing site was interacting with the beverage recipe to cause the bottles to bulge, IFG commenced arbitration, alleging breach of contract over lost profits. The Arbitrator denied IFG’s claims in full because he found that IFG had failed to establish that any act or omission by UF breached the Agreement. IFG requested in district court that the award be vacated, arguing that the Arbitrator’s determination fails “to draw its essence from the agreement.” The district court noted that beyond the four grounds pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 10(a) on which a court may vacate an arbitration award, the Second Circuit has “recognized a judicially-created ground, namely that an arbitral decision may be vacated when an arbitrator has exhibited a manifest disregard of law.” Nevertheless, the district court held that the arbitration award should stand because IFG had failed to demonstrate any of the five grounds for vacatur were implicated on these facts.

Incredible Foods Group, LLC v. Unifoods, S.A. de C.V., No. 14-cv-5207 (USDC E.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2015).

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

See our disclaimer.

SECOND CIRCUIT FINDS ARBITRATOR DID NOT EXCEED AUTHORITY BY ISSUING AWARD, CONTRARY TO EARLIER AWARD

by

This appeal is from a judgment entered by a district court in New York, denying a petition of United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America (“UBC”) to enforce a May 4, 2014 arbitration award (“May 4 Award”) and to vacate a subsequent award on May 13, 2014 (“May 13 Award”), and granting Tappan Zee Constructors, LLC’s cross petition, seeking enforcement of the May 13 Award. UBC appealed the district court’s conclusion that the May 4 Award was not final and that the arbitrator did not exceed his authority by issuing the May 13 Award.

The contract at issue provided that the arbitrator must “render a short-form decision within 5 days of the hearing based upon the evidence submitted at the hearing, with a written decision to follow within 30 days of the close of the hearing”. The Second Circuit, under the “heightened standard of deference” courts apply to arbitration awards, concluded that it must defer to the arbitrator’s interpretation of the contract as allowing him to alter the earlier short‐form decision when rendering his later written decision. The Court noted that the contract does not define the term “short‐form”, nor does it specifically require that the second decision echo the result of the first. Thus, the Court held that, absent any such definitions or provisions, the arbitrator had the authority to interpret the contract as allowing him to change or alter the first award in consideration of certain criteria under the National Plan for the Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes in the Construction Industry, which governed the arbitration. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court’s ruling, confirming the May 13 Award and vacating the May 4 Award.

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America v. Tappan Zee Constructors, LLC, No. 15-1002 (2d Cir. Oct. 20, 2015).

This post written by Jeanne Kohler.

See our disclaimer.

SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARILY AFFIRMS DENIAL OF PETITION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD BASED ON PARTIALITY CLAIM

by

Late last month, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals summarily affirmed denial of a petition to vacate an arbitration award where a party was arguing that the arbitrator was biased. The case involved a dispute between an Israeli medical device company and a New York-based investment company and whether the medical device company owed a fee when it located an investor. The investment company argued that “the Arbitrator’s procedural rulings and fee award in [the medical device company]’s favor, along with her professional affiliations, evince[d] partiality.” The investment company attempted to point to the facts that (i) the arbitrator struck six of its ten document requests and refused to grant it an extension of time to engage an expert witness and (ii) the arbitrator came from the International Chamber of Commerce, where two attorneys of the medical device company were affiliated, neither of which the trial court accepted as bases for vacating the arbitration award. The Second Circuit entered an order summarily affirming. Landmark Ventures, Inc. v. InSightec, Ltd., No. 14-4599-cv (2d Cir. Oct. 30, 2015).

This post written by Zach Ludens.

See our disclaimer.