Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

COURT OF APPEALS VACATES $185 MILLION ARBITRATION AWARD WHERE CLAIMANT FAILED TO ABIDE BY TREATY’S PREREQUISITE OF BRINGING A LAWSUIT IN THE ARGENTINEAN COURTS

by

The United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has vacated an arbitration award in excess of $185 million issued against the Republic of Argentina and in favor of a British company, BG Group, PLC, that had invested in gas distribution in Argentina. It reversed a district court order that, as we reported earlier, had confirmed the award. The court cited BG Group’s failure to abide by a provision in the governing Bilateral Investment Treaty between Argentina and the U.K. requiring disputes to be submitted to an Argentinean court and litigated for eighteen months without resolution before an arbitration could be commenced. The appellate court further rejected the arbitration panel’s decision that it would be “senseless” to comply with this provision, which the panel based on an opinion, rendered by a former Argentinean Attorney General and Minister of Justice, that it could take six years to resolve BG Group’s claims in the Argentinean courts. The court of appeals further held that the district court erred in determining that the arbitrators properly decided the threshold question of arbitrability because there was no clear and unmistakable evidence that the arbitrators should decide the issue where the precondition of bringing the dispute to court had not been met. Republic of Argentina v. BG Group, PLC, No. 11-7021 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 17, 2012).

This post written by Ben Seessel.

See our disclaimer.

COURT AWARDS PREJUDGMENT INTEREST TO REINSURER ON PAST DUE BILLINGS

by

Munich Reinsurance America, Inc. and Tower Insurance Co. of New York were parties to certain reinsurance and retrocessional agreements. A billing dispute arose and Munich Re brought suit. Tower had resisted payment of the billings due because it had not received sufficient information demonstrating its liability for the billed amounts. During the course of discovery the parties reconciled the billings, and determined and agreed that Tower owed Munich $3,287,597. They disputed how much interest Tower should be charged for its withholding, and moved for summary judgment on the issue, with Tower contending interest should be limited to $5,404.27, and Munich Re contending it was owed $673,806.00, based on differing views of the rate and accrual date. Citing its equitable powers, and with guidance from state civil procedure rules applicable to interest on contract debts, the Court split the baby, finding Tower owed Munich Re $168,093.61 in pre-judgment interest. Munich Reinsurance America, Inc. v. Tower Ins. Co. of New York, No. 09-2598 (USDC D.N.J. Mar. 26, 2012).

This post written by John Pitblado.

See our disclaimer.

MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION ROUNDUP

by

Class-Waiver Arbitration Clauses:

Vernon v. Qwest Communications International, Inc., Case No. 1:09-cv-01840 (USDC D.D.C. Mar. 8, 2012) (compelling arbitration; class-waiver arbitration provision in electronic agreement that was not “user friendly” was enforceable under Concepcion, as it was not unconscionable under state law)

Smith v. Americredit Financial Services, Inc., Case No. 3:09-cv-01076 (USDC S.D. Cal. March 12, 2012) (denying motion to compel arbitration; class waiver arbitration provision in retail installment contract was procedurally and substantively unconscionable under state law and was thus unenforceable, notwithstanding Concepcion)

Division of Labor Between Courts and Arbitrators:

Grigsby & Associates, Inc. v. M Securities Investment, Case No. 09-11817 (11th Cir. Dec. 20, 2011) (vacating order denying motion to enjoin arbitration; district court incorrectly held that arbitrators should decide whether defendants waived right to arbitrate by pursuing several lawsuits)

Schatz v. Cellco Partnership, Case No. 1:10-cv-05414 (USDC S.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2012) (compelling arbitration; validity of arbitration clause limiting relief available to plaintiff was question for arbitration, where it was ambiguous whether a “clear conflict” existed between the arbitration clause and purported rights to relief under state law)

Unite Here Local 25 v. Madison Ownership, LLC, Case No. 1:11-cv-0062 (USDC D.D.C. March 23, 2012) (denying dismissal of injunction action to compel labor arbitration, but ordering discovery as to coverage of arbitration agreement; purported failure of legal basis for injunctive relief was not a jurisdictional issue for the court, but was a question of available remedy for arbitrators to decide)

Waller v. Foulke Management Corp., Case No. 1:10-cv-06342 (USDC D.N.J. Mar. 19, 2012) (denying reconsideration of order compelling arbitration; whether multiple arbitration agreements were consistent and thus valid was question for court)

Seventeenth Street Associates, LLC v. Cole, Case No. 3:11-cv-00478 (USDC S.D. W. Va. Feb. 29, 2012) (compelling arbitration; court determines res judicata precluded relitigation of prior order compelling arbitration)

Right to Enforce Arbitration Agreement:

Allianz Global Risk U.S. Insurance Co. v. General Electric Co., Case No. 10-55451 (9th Cir. Mar. 5, 2012) (affirming order compelling arbitration; Allianz had subrogation rights under state law and thus GE was estopped from refusing to arbitrate with Allianz under the arbitration agreement between GE and Allianz’s insured)

Butto v. Collecto Inc., Case No. 2:10-cv-02906 (USDC E.D.N.Y. Feb. 23, 2012) (denying reconsideration of order denying motion to compel arbitration; non-signatory was not “sufficiently close” to contracting party to enforce arbitration agreement)

Thomas v. Westlake, Case No. D058531 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 23, 2012) (reversing denial of petition to compel arbitration; alleged agency relationship amongst defendants permitted non-signatory defendants to enforce arbitration agreement)

This post written by Michael Wolgin.

See our disclaimer.

“RIGHT TO KNOW” LAW INAPPLICABLE TO RECORDS SOUGHT IN INSURER’S LIQUIDATION PROCEEDINGS

by

A court vacated an order of the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records that denied a request for documents in the possession of the department of insurance related to the drafting of the reinsurance offset guidelines of a liquidating insurer. The OOR had found that the documents were exempt from disclosure as “internal predecisional deliberations” in the possession of the department, which was serving as the insurer’s statutory liquidator. On appeal, while the court tended to agree with the OOR’s reasoning, it found that the state disclosure law was “inapplicable to rehabilitation or liquidation proceedings because [the records] are solely within the control of the court under the Insurance Act.” As a result, the court held that it, and not the OOR, had jurisdiction over the documents relating to the drafting of the guidelines. Greenberger v. Pennsylvania Insurance Department, Case No. 931 C.D. 2011 (Pa. Commw. Ct. March 7, 2012).

This post written by Michael Wolgin.

See our disclaimer.