Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

TENNESSEE WITHDRAWS FROM SLIMPACT

by

Tennessee’s governor signed into law a repeal of that state’s previously-passed enabling legislation, which allowed it to join the Surplus Lines Insurance Multi-State Compliance Compact (“SLIMPACT”). SLIMPACT was one of the two models proposed by various states in response to the invitation and recommendation to do so set forth in the Non-Admitted and Reinsurance Reform Act (“NRRA”) as part of the omnibus Dodd-Frank financial regulation overhaul passed by Congress in 2010. SLIMPACT is an interstate compact created for the purpose of allowing states to take advantage of shared administration of data, record-keeping, and premium tax allocation. Tennessee was the last state to join, which it did in June, 2011, becoming the ninth state. By its terms, SLIMPACT was slated to become effective once ten states joined. However, its future is now in doubt as it moved farther away from its ten-state goal, after stalling at nine states for the last three years. The repeal bill, Tennessee Senate Bill 356, was signed into law on April 4, 2014, and repeals Section 56-14-201 of the Tennessee Code. The bill becomes effective July 1, 2014.

This post written by John Pitblado.

See our disclaimer.

DENIAL OF ARBITRATION REVERSED WHERE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO HOLD TRIAL TO RESOLVE DISPUTED QUESTIONS OF FACT

by

The Tenth Circuit has pointedly reversed a trial court’s decision to deny arbitration, based on the fact that the lower court failed to hold a trial (as required by the FAA) when disputed questions of fact surrounding the parties’ oral agreement remained. The case was brought as a class action against a propane gas company for overcharging customers. Despite multiple rounds of lengthy discovery, factual questions remained regarding the content of conversations between the parties, and when the “last act” of contract formation occurred for purposes of determining choice of state contract law. The Tenth Circuit concluded: “Summary-judgment-like motions practice may be a permissible and expedient way to resolve arbitrability questions when it’s clear no material disputes of fact exist and only legal questions remain. But when factual disputes may determine whether the parties agreed to arbitrate, the way to resolve them isn’t by round after round of discovery and motions practice. It is by proceeding summarily to trial. That is the procedure the [FAA] requires and the parties should have undertaken a long time ago – and it is the procedure they must follow now.” Howard v. Ferrellgas Partners, L.P., Case No. 13-3061 (10th Cir. April 8, 2014).

This post written by Michael Wolgin.

See our disclaimer.

COURT VACATES ARBITRATION AWARD WHERE ARBITRATION HELD UNDER INCORRECT ARBITRATION RULES

by

A federal judge in Houston recently vacated an arbitration award where the reinsurance agreement specified that the arbitration of any disputes would proceed “under the auspices of the ICC,” but the arbitration actually proceeded under the American Arbitration Association’s Commercial Arbitration Rules. The Court found that the parties to the reinsurance agreements selected the International Chamber of Commerce, and application of its rules, as a mandatory and essential condition of their agreement to arbitrate. Because this did not occur, the selected arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to hear the claims presented. The court noted that generally, after the conclusion of an arbitration, a court cannot second guess the arbitrator’s jurisdiction and decision so long as the arbitrator (1) is arguably construing or applying the contract, and (2) is acting within the scope of his authority. The court found, however, that the case presented a rare example of the second exception, in which an arbitrator assumed authority over a dispute that the parties’ agreements mandated be referred to a different forum, namely the ICC. This error fundamentally prejudiced the proceedings. PoolRe Insurance Corp. v. Organizational Strategies, Inc., Case No. H-13-1857 (USDC S.D. Tex. Mar. 31, 2014).

This post written by Catherine Acree.

See our disclaimer.

THIRD CIRCUIT ISSUES OPINION ON ARBITRABILITY OF DIRECT AND ASSIGNED, OR DERIVATIVE, CLAIMS

by

The Third Circuit recently vacated a lower court’s decision granting a motion to compel arbitration of (1) direct claims by certain cardiac services health providers against CIGNA and (2) claims by those providers on behalf of employee benefit plan participants who were initially denied coverage of the cardiac services by CIGNA but subsequently provided such services by the providers in exchange for assignment of their rights and claims under ERISA against CIGNA to the providers. After observing that the plain language of an arbitration agreement controls and that the presumption of arbitrability applies only where an arbitration provision is ambiguous, the Court of Appeals first held that the alleged facts underlying the direct claims unambiguously did not concern “the performance or interpretation” of the administrative agreement between CIGNA and the providers, as required by the arbitration clause, because the claims involved a CIGNA policy update document distinct from, and sent years after, the administrative agreement. As for the derivative claims, which related to CIGNA’s decision to deny coverage of the cardiac services to the participants, the court concluded that such coverage decision was subject to the terms or conditions of the applicable benefit plan and governed by ERISA, not the administrative agreement. The participants’ rights to pursue their ERISA claims in court could not be diluted through compelled arbitration just because the providers, as assignees, had promised to arbitrate certain of the direct claims they might bring against CIGNA. CardioNet, Inc. v. CIGNA Health Corp., No. 13-2496 (3d Cir. May 6, 2014).

This post written by Kyle Whitehead.

See our disclaimer.