New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields
Did you know that the notice/prejudice rules vary from state to state, and may be different for direct insurance and reinsurance claims? These rules may lead to unexpected burdens of proof and unexpected results. Special Focus Editor John Pitblado sorts out the rules in this area in a Special Focus article that recently appeared in Mealey’s Reinsurance titled: Pride and Prejudice: Prompt Notice in Reinsurance Claims.
This post written by John Pitblado.
Arbitration was denied in a putative class action lawsuit for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act brought by two cell phone users against Collecto Inc., a collection agency contracted by Verizon and AT&T. Collecto was not a party to the underlying cell phone service contracts between the plaintiffs and cell phone carriers, but sought to enforce the contracts’ respective arbitration provisions based on the doctrines of agency and estoppel. The court applied the two-prong test in the Supreme Court’s Stolt Nielsen decision, which requires a non-signatory seeking to compel arbitration to show (1) that there are “intertwined factual issues” between the claims asserted and the agreement, and (2) that there is a relationship among the parties that justifies estoppel. While the court found that the first pong was met, it found that the second prong failed because the relationship between Collecto and the cell phone carriers was not “sufficiently close” to warrant estoppel. The court made this determination because no corporate relationship existed between Collecto and the carriers, the underlying contracts between Collecto and the carriers expressly disclaimed any agency relationship, and plaintiffs contended that Collecto had acted without valid authorization from the carriers. The court concluded that although “the FAA strongly favors arbitration, the applicable rule recognized in this case – that a party cannot be forced to arbitrate without agreeing to do so – must succeed.” Butto v. Collecto, Inc., Case No. 10-cv-2906 (USDC E.D.N.Y. Aug. 15, 2011).
This post written by Michael Wolgin.
The US District Court for the District of Columbia recently held an evidentiary hearing on two actions initiated by Lloyd’s against the Syrian Arab Republic, the Syrian Air Force Intelligence Agency, and Syria’s Director of Military Intelligence (the claims against the named Libyan defendants having been dismissed pursuant to the enactment of the Libya Claims Resolution Act). Lloyd’s seeks judgment and an award of damages for acts of state-sponsored terrorism that resulted in the hijacking and destruction of the aircraft of EgyptAir Flight 648 in 1985. The US Magistrate Judge ruled that the Syrian defendants provided material support and resources to and conspired with the terrorists in the hijacking of Egypt Air Flight 648, and that the Syrian defendants intended that their support would promote and cause extrajudicial killings of American citizens and the destruction of the EgyptAir aircraft. The Court additionally found that the actions could not have occurred without the explicit authorization of then-Syrian President Hafiz al-Asad. Accordingly, the Court will enter judgment and grant an award of damages on behalf of the plaintiffs against the Syrian defendants in a separate order. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London v. Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, No. 06-cv-731 (USDC D.D.C. Sept. 2, 2011).
This post written by John Black.
On December 15, 2010, we reported on Aurum Asset Managers, LLC v. Banco de Estado do Rio Grande do Sul, in which a court vacated its prior confirmation of an arbitration award in favor of Aurum upon independently finding that subject matter jurisdiction was lacking over the case. The appellate court has now affirmed that decision, rejecting the argument that the award could be overturned only if it constituted a “clear usurpation of power.” The court explained that the “clear usurpation” legal standard applies only when jurisdiction has been litigated “such that re-litigation of the issue is barred by principles of res judicata.” Here, the defendant had elected to ignore the judicial proceedings. The lower court did not err by conducting its own jurisdictional analysis, finding that jurisdiction did not exist, and vacating the arbitration award. Aurum Asset Managers, LLC v. Bradesco Companhia de Seguros, No. 10-4281 (3d Cir. Aug. 15, 2011).
This post written by Michael Wolgin.
Titan Maritime appealed a district court’s decision denying its motion to compel arbitration in an action filed by Cape Flattery Limited for gross negligence in the salvage of a vessel owned by Cape Flattery. Titan argued that the district court erred in refusing to apply English arbitrability law and that, even under federal arbitrability law, the dispute should go to arbitration. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion to compel arbitration, noting specifically that under the Supreme Court’s reasoning in First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938 (1995), non-federal arbitrability law should apply only if there is clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties intended to apply such non-federal law. Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit held that federal arbitrability law did apply and that under federal law, the dispute was not arbitrable. Cape Flattery Limited v. Titan Maritime, LLC, No. 09-15682 (9th Cir. July 26, 2011).
This post written by John Black.