Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

TENTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMS DENIAL OF MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION BASED ON UNSIGNED AGREEMENT

by

The Tenth Circuit recently affirmed a district court’s denial of a motion to compel arbitration in a securities fraud lawsuit brought by two investors in a company. The basis for the motion to compel was an arbitration provision contained in an unsigned copy of the company’s Operating Agreement that had been provided to the plaintiffs prior to them making their investment in the company. The Tenth Circuit ruled that the mere fact that the plaintiffs invested in the company following their receipt of an unsigned Operating Agreement did not establish that the plaintiffs agreed to, and accepted, the terms of the Operating Agreement, including its arbitration provision because under the controlling state law, a contact between the parties had not been formed. The Tenth Circuit also agreed with the district court that the plaintiffs were not equitably estopped from asserting their lack of signature on the Operating Agreement as a basis for avoiding arbitration. The Tenth Circuit acknowledged the legal principle that a party may be bound by an arbitration agreement in a contract he did not sign, if that party is seeking to enforce rights under that contract. But the court found no evidence that the plaintiffs in the instant case were seeking to enforce rights under the Operating Agreement. Bellman v. I3Carbon, LLC, No. 12-1275 (10th Cir. May 29, 2014).

This post written by Catherine Acree.

See our disclaimer.

DODD-FRANK DOES NOT BAR ARBITRATION OF CLAIMS IF ARBITRATION AGREEMENT DOES NOT EXEMPT DODD-FRANK WHISTLEBLOWER CLAIMS

by

The Fourth Circuit affirmed order from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia compelling arbitration of former employee’s federal claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The Court held that where a plaintiff is not pursuing Dodd-Frank whistleblower claims, neither 7 U.S.C. § 26(n)(2), nor 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(e)(2) of Dodd-Frank overrides the Federal Arbitration Act’s mandate that arbitration agreements are enforceable. The Court examined the interplay between the Federal Arbitration Act and Dodd-Frank and determined that while Dodd-Frank created causes of action for whistleblowers and then protected those causes of action by barring their waiver in “predispute arbitration agreements” nothing in Dodd-Frank suggests that Congress sought to bar arbitration of every claim if the arbitration agreement in question did not exempt Dodd-Frank claims. Santoro v. Accenture Federal Services, LLC et. al., No. 12-2561 (4th Cir. May 5, 2014).

This post written by Kelly A. Cruz-Brown.

See our disclaimer.

COURT DENIES RENEWED ATTEMPT TO DISMISS DEFENSES IN REINSURANCE DISPUTE ASSOCIATED WITH ASBESTOS-RELATED LIABILITIES

by

In this case, plaintiffs sought leave to renew their motion to dismiss certain retention-related and assignment affirmative defenses based on provisions of certain Loss Portfolio Transfer (LPT) agreements, and to re-argue the motion to dismiss based on their contention that the court: (1) overlooked arguments raised by the parties; (2) determined issues sua sponte without factual and legal support; and (3) misapplied precedent to the undisputed facts at issue.  The court denied plaintiffs’ motions.  The court determined that plaintiffs had failed to refute defendant’s assertion that the LPT may have transferred all of the plaintiffs’ relevant interests and constituted an impermissible assignment because plaintiffs failed to provide documentation showing that the cap in the LPT agreements could be exceeded.  The court also decided that plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of showing that the defendant’s retention defenses were without merit as a matter of law.  The court determined that the LPT did not satisfy the definition of treaty insurance because it was not obtained in advance of coverage. Furthermore, the court determined that the parties’ statements concerning the extent of plaintiffs’ assignment of their interests in the insurance certificates in question were not fatal to defendant’s assignment defenses as a whole.  Granite State Ins. Co. v. Transatlantic Reinsurance Co., Index No. 652506/2012 (Sup. Ct of N.Y., County of N.Y. June 18, 2014).

This post written by Kelly A. Cruz-Brown.

See our disclaimer.

COURT FINDS COMMUNICATIONS WITH REINSURERS DISCOVERABLE IN COVERAGE DISPUTE

by

A federal court in Minnesota determined that an umbrella insurer’s communications with its reinsurers are discoverable in a coverage dispute. The case is titled National Union v. Donaldson Co., and the focus is on the scope of coverage that National Union is required to provide to its insured under certain umbrella policies in connection with the insured’s liability in two underlying lawsuits. One of the issues in the case is whether a “batch clause” in the primary policy was applicable to the umbrella policies. The “batch clause” affects how many deductibles are applicable, i.e., whether it is possible to “batch claims” under the umbrella policies so that only one deductible should be applied or whether separate deductibles must be satisfied.

The insured filed a motion to compel production of, among other things, National Union’s communications with its reinsurers, arguing that the communications were relevant to its bad faith counterclaim because National Union had taken the position that only a certain amount of policy limits could be available under the primary policy and that it was not possible to “batch claims” under the umbrella policies. The insured contended that what National Union said to its reinsurers on the issue would shed light on the timing of National Union’s view of the batch clause and its application for the primary and the umbrella layers of coverage, as well as National Union’s understanding of the potential indemnity exposure under the various policies. The Magistrate Judge granted the motion without discussion, concluding only that the standard in Rule 26(b)(1) had been met. The District Court overruled National Union’s objections to the Magistrate Judge’s order, noting a split of authority on the discoverability of communications with reinsurers in bad faith cases, and concluding that the ruling was not contrary to law or clearly erroneous.

National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. Donaldson Co., Inc., No. 10-4948 (USDC D. Minn. June 24, 2014).

This post written by Catherine Acree.

See our disclaimer.

ARBITRATORS, NOT COURTS, TO DECIDE AVAILABILITY OF CLASS ARBITRATION UNDER PARTIES’ AGREEMENT

by

A federal court in New York has held that arbitrators, not courts, should decide whether class arbitration is available under an arbitration agreement entered into between private parties. The court had previously compelled the arbitration of plaintiffs’ claims against certain defendants and stayed the remainder of the action. The issue now presented was on defendants’ motion to preclude plaintiffs from pursuing class arbitration and to require individual arbitrations of those claims. In determining that the issue of class arbitration was one for the arbitrators, the court considered prior U.S. Supreme Court and lower court holdings, but found no binding precedent on the issue. Because the court had already ruled on the enforceability of the parties’ agreement to arbitrate, the interpretation of that agreement – to decide whether or not it allowed for class arbitration – was “a matter within the arbitrator’s competence.” Defendants’ request to order individual arbitrations was therefore denied. The court declined to reach the parties’ other arguments, including whether plaintiffs had waived or conceded the class arbitration issue, finding those matters also best left to the arbitrators. In Re A2P SMS Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 12-CV-2656 (USDC S.D.N.Y. May 29, 2014).

This post written by Renee Schimkat.

See our disclaimer.