Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

CLAIMANT IN UK COURT ENTITLED TO ENGINEERING REPORTS OF DAMAGED HIGHWAY COVERED UNDER REINSURANCE AGREEMENT

by

The UK Commercial Court, Queens Bench Division, recently decided a discovery matter in a reinsurance dispute. The litigation arose out of a dispute under a facultative reinsurance contract, which reinsured claimant Axa Seguros’ participation in an insurance policy covering risks of physical damage to a “Toll Road Network concession” in Mexico. After a hurricane caused damage to a highway, Axa Seguros initiated arbitration and subsequently filed suit against Allianz, seeking indemnity for sums said to be due under the reinsurance contract. Axa sought all reports and associated documents produced by Halcrow, an engineering company hired to inspect the damaged highway. Allianz, for its part, claimed a litigation privilege on the basis that it was obtained and prepared for the purpose of obtaining legal advice in connection with expected litigation. The presiding justice concluded that, although litigation was reasonably expected at the time the reports were made, the reports were not generated for the predominant purpose of anticipated litigation. Rather, they were generated to assess whether the highway had been constructed up to international standards, and to determine what damage had been caused by the hurricane. Accordingly, Axa was entitled to the materials sought. Axa Seguros, S.A. DE C.V. v. Allianz Ins. PLC, 2011 EWHC 268, Case No. 2007 Folio 1396 (Comm. Ct. Q.B. Feb. 3, 2011).

This post written by John Black.

COURT EXERCISES PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER CANADIAN CORPORATION BUT FINDS MOTION TO VACATE PARTIAL FINAL ARBITRAL AWARD IS NOT JUSTICIABLE

by

Pearl Seas Cruises, LLC (“PSC”), a Marshall Islands company whose members are Connecticut residents, petitioned a Connecticut federal district court to vacate a partial final arbitral award issued by a panel of arbitrators in connection with its dispute against Canadian corporation, Irving Shipbuilding Incorporated (“ISI”). ISI moved to dismiss, arguing that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over it and that PSC’s petition was premature because no final arbitration award had been issued yet by the panel. The court held that because ISI’s sales pitch, contract negotiations, and several meetings to resolve issues regarding contract performance occurred in Connecticut, ISI had the required minimum contacts with Connecticut to subject it to the court’s jurisdiction. However, the court held that PSC’s petition was not justiciable because the panel had not yet issued a final arbitral award. Pearl Seas Cruises, LLC v. Irving Shipbuilding, Inc., Case No. 10-1294 (USDC D. Conn. Feb. 9, 2011)

This post written by Ben Seessel.

NON-PARTIES TO CONTRACT CONTAINING ARBITRATION CLAUSE CAN COMPEL ARBITRATION; FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT CLAIM IS ARBITRABLE

by

Plaintiff filed a complaint in federal court alleging breach of contract and fraud against StoresOnline, its parent corporation, IMergent, and several officers and directors of the companies. StoresOnline offers software and support services for conducting internet businesses; Plaintiff had contracted with StoresOnline to purchase six web-stores. The contract between plaintiff and StoresOnline contained an arbitration clause, which provided that: “any and all disputes that arise . . . concerning this Agreement . . . or that concern any aspect of the relationship . . . shall be decided exclusively in binding arbitration.” Plaintiff asserted two arguments in opposition to the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. First, Plaintiff argued that she only agreed to arbitrate with StoresOnline and not the other defendants, and, second, that the agreement was unenforceable because it had been procured by fraud. The court rejected both arguments and compelled arbitration. The court held that plaintiff’s claims against all defendants arose out of her relationship with StoresOnline and thus were governed by the terms of the arbitration clause, and that a claim of fraudulent inducement that generally challenges the enforceability of a contract, and not specifically the arbitration provision itself, may be subject to arbitration. Hird v. IMergent, Inc., Case No. 10-166 (USDC S.D.N.Y. Jan. 6, 2011).

This post written by Ben Seessel.

APPELLATE COURT REJECTS REINSURER’S PRIORITY CLAIM TO ASSET DISTRIBUTION IN PRIMARY INSURER’S REHABILITATION PROCEEDINGS

by

In the course of Ideal Mutual Insurance Company’s rehabilitation proceedings, Allstate Insurance Company, one of Ideal’s reinsurers, objected to a referee’s report, which denied Allstate’s claim of a vested, and therefore priority, right to the distribution of assets, by retroactive application of a New York insurance statute. The trial court denied Allstate’s motion to reject the referee’s report. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed, disagreeing with Allstate’s reading of the applicable statute, which Allstate argued could not constitutionally be applied retroactively. The appellate court held that the statute could and should be applied retroactively, because the plain language indicated the legislature’s awareness that it would be so applied. In re Ideal Mutual Ins. Co., No. 40275/85 (N.Y. App. Div. March 15, 2011).

This post written by John Pitblado.