Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

Private Employment Arbitration Agreement Not Binding on Secretary of Labor When Bringing an Enforcement Action on Behalf of One Party to Agreement Against the Other

by

The Department of Labor brought an enforcement action against Arizona Logistics Inc. for alleged violations of the FLSA’s minimum wage, overtime, record-keeping, and anti-retaliation requirements resulting from the alleged misclassification of delivery drivers as independent contractors rather than employees. Arizona Logistics moved to compel arbitration under its agreements with the drivers, and the Arizona district court denied the motion on the authority of the Supreme Court’s decision in EEOC v. Waffle House Inc.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the denial, noting that the FAA does not provide that agreements to arbitrate are enforceable against nonparties, and the secretary of labor was not a party to the agreement. In addition, the court highlighted the fact that, under the statutory scheme enacted by Congress, the secretary is “master of [his] own case,” that the remedial statute at issue “unambiguously authorizes the Secretary to obtain monetary relief on behalf of specific aggrieved employees,” and that the enforcement action may be a vehicle to “vindicate broader governmental interests,” such as deterring other employers from violating the FLSA and protecting compliant employers from unfair wage competition. Moreover, the secretary not only controlled the case, but the employee did not even have a right to intervene in the secretary’s action once the secretary filed suit.

Quoting Waffle House, the Ninth Circuit concluded that a contrary holding “would undermine the detailed enforcement scheme created by Congress simply to give greater effect to an agreement between private parties that does not even contemplate the Secretary’s statutory function.”

Walsh v. Arizona Logistics, Inc., No. 20-15765 (9th Cir. May 18, 2021).

English High Court Blocks Financial Services Group From Bringing Excess Insurance Claim Against UK Reinsurers in South Africa Where Courts of England and Wales Had Exclusive Jurisdiction Under Excess Layer Reinsurance Contracts

by

After paying out more than $21 million in settlements for its mishandling of a collective investment scheme that collapsed in 2009, financial services group ABSA filed suit in South Africa against its reinsurers to enforce reinsurance contracts that purportedly provided compensation for the settlement of lawsuits and arbitration.

The U.K.-based reinsurers claimed that the proceedings brought against them in South Africa by ABSA were in breach of the reinsurance contracts, which provided that the courts of England and Wales should have exclusive jurisdiction.

The reinsurers applied for an interim anti-suit injunction. An interim anti-suit injunction restraining ABSA from pursuing the South African proceedings was granted until the return date. On the return date, Nicholas Vineall QC, sitting as a judge at the High Court, addressed what, if any, anti-suit injunction was appropriate — mainly whether he should continue, or vary, or decline to continue, the interim injunction.

Finding no strong reasons for refusing to restrain the South African proceedings on the excess layers, the High Court judge held he would keep in place the anti-suit injunction preventing a claim from being brought in South Africa under the excess layers, reasoning that the excess layer coverage was governed by an exclusive jurisdiction clause that required disputes to be litigated in the courts of England and Wales. However, the High Court judge refused to continue the injunction preventing a South African proceeding over the primary layer of reinsurance, as that primary layer of coverage had no such exclusive jurisdiction clause.

Recognizing that the end result was not ideal because it leaves most of the parties involved in two sets of proceedings, the High Court judge reasoned that its decision “reflects the different wording of the agreements which the parties entered into,” and “[t]he result does give effect to and enforce those agreements.”

Axis Corporate Capital UK II Ltd. v. ABSA Group Ltd., No. CL-2020-000871, [2021] EWHC 861 (Comm), in the High Court of Justice, Business and Property Courts of England and Wales, Commercial Court (Apr. 13, 2021).

Party Opposing Confirmation of Non-Domestic Arbitration Award Subject to Convention May Also Assert FAA Defenses If Award Rendered in the U.S. or Under U.S. Arbitral Law

by

In 2006, Goldgroup and DynaResource entered into a contract relating to a gold mining operation in Mexico, which contained a dispute resolution provision requiring that the disputes be submitted to binding arbitration in Denver, Colorado, under the rules of the American Arbitration Association (AAA). Goldgroup initiated arbitration in Denver, but DynaResource refused to participate, relying on a Mexico City court’s ruling in 2015 that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable because Goldgroup had waived its right to arbitration by submitting to the jurisdiction of Mexico courts in prior disputes.

In 2016, the arbitrator ruled in Goldgroup’s favor and awarded it monetary and equitable relief. The arbitrator also found that the arbitration clause was valid and enforceable, that Goldgroup had not waived its right to arbitrate by participating in any other lawsuits, and that DynaResource engaged in forum shopping by asking the Mexico City court to rule on the arbitrability of Goldgroup’s claims.

Goldgroup then sought confirmation of the non-domestic arbitration award in the Colorado district court. DynaResource opposed recognition of the award under the Inter-American Convention on International Commercial Arbitration (the Convention) and moved to vacate the award under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), arguing that the award should not be confirmed because the arbitrator exceeded the scope of his authority by ruling on the issue of whether Goldgroup had waived its right to arbitrate and whether the Mexico City court’s ruling effectively annulled the subsequent award issued in the arbitration. The district court confirmed the award and entered final judgment against DynaResource. After unsuccessfully moving to alter or amend the judgment, DynaResource appealed.

On appeal, DynaResource argued that the district court erred in holding that waiver was a question for the court without making a factual determination as to whether Goldgroup in fact waived its right to arbitration. Goldgroup contended that DynaResource did not raise the issue with the district court and thus failed to preserve it. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, finding that the district court was not required to decide whether Goldgroup waived its right to arbitrate because the issue was not properly before it, and DynaResource had not preserved the issue for the appellate court’s review.

In addition, Goldgroup argued that even if DynaResource had preserved the issue, waiver is not available as a defense to confirmation of the award because FAA defenses, such as waiver, do not provide grounds for vacating an award subject to the Convention.

On an issue of first impression, the Tenth Circuit addressed whether the FAA’s vacatur standards apply when a U.S. court is considering the confirmation of a non-domestic arbitration award subject to the Convention and rendered in the United States or under U.S. arbitral law.

The Tenth Circuit rejected Goldgroup’s argument, holding that the Convention’s defenses for opposing the confirmation of a non-domestic arbitration award are not exclusive and that a party may also assert FAA defenses to oppose confirmation if the non-domestic arbitration award was rendered in the United States or under U.S. arbitral law.

Despite its holding that DynaResource could seek vacatur under the FAA, the Tenth Circuit rejected DynaResource’s argument under the FAA that the arbitrator exceeded his authority by ruling on the issue of arbitrability, finding that the contracting parties manifested a clear intent to arbitrate the issue of arbitrability by incorporating the AAA rules into their arbitration agreement. Moreover, the circuit court found DynaResource failed to show that any alleged error by the arbitrator in ruling on the waiver issue warranted vacatur.

The circuit court also rejected DynaResource’s argument under the Convention that the Mexico City court’s ruling effectively annulled the subsequent arbitration award, holding that the defense does not apply preemptively to awards not yet rendered. The circuit court also found the defense was inapplicable because the Mexico City court improperly applied Mexican law rather than U.S. law, where the arbitration was pending. Therefore, the Tenth Circuit affirmed confirmation of the award.

Goldgroup Resources, Inc. v. DynaResource de Mexico, S.A. de C.V., No. 20-1143 (10th Cir. Apr. 16, 2021).

Connecticut Supreme Court Finds State Law Statutory Limitation Period to Vacate Arbitration Award Confers Jurisdiction on State Courts and Not Preempted by FAA

by

Plaintiff A Better Way Wholesale Autos Inc. filed an application in Connecticut state court seeking to vacate an arbitration award issued in favor of the defendants, James Saint Paul and Julie J. Saint Paul. The defendants filed motions to confirm the award and for attorneys’ fees, and to dismiss the plaintiff’s application. The defendants argued that the application was untimely under Connecticut Statutes section 52-420 (b) and that the trial court therefore lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The trial court order granting the defendant’s motions and dismissing the plaintiff’s application was affirmed on appeal. The Supreme Court of Connecticut framed the issues as: (1) whether Connecticut’s 30-day statutory limitation for seeking to vacate an arbitration award is “jurisdictional” in that it implicates the subject matter jurisdiction of state courts; and (2) whether the Connecticut statute is preempted by the FAA, which has a three-month limitation period for seeking to vacate.

With regard to the jurisdictional issue, the plaintiff claimed that section 52-420 (b) did not confer jurisdiction because the arbitration clause between the parties explicitly provided that any arbitration “shall be governed by the [FAA] … and not by any state law concerning arbitration.” But the Supreme Court agreed with the courts below that parties cannot privately agree to have the FAA’s three-month limitation period apply to a vacatur action filed in Connecticut state court, so as to override the limitation period in section 52-420 (b). The Supreme Court also found it is “hornbook law” that parties cannot confer subject matter jurisdiction on a court by consent or agreement. The Supreme Court was similarly unpersuaded by the plaintiff’s preemption argument, finding the time limitation in section 52-420 (b) does not impede the federal policy of enforcing arbitration agreements.

A Better Way Wholesale Autos, Inc. v. Saint Paul, No. SC 20386 (Conn. Apr. 15, 2021).

Eleventh Circuit Revives Labor Union’s Complaint to Compel Arbitration That District Court Had Found to Be Time-Barred

by

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed an order granting summary judgment to an employer in a case brought by a union to compel arbitration pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement. The district court had concluded that the complaint was untimely because it was filed beyond the six-month limitations period for complaints brought under Georgia law to compel arbitration under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. According to the district court, the employer, BellSouth, “unequivocally refused to arbitrate” more than six months before the union’s lawsuit. The Eleventh Circuit disagreed, agreeing with the union that the record demonstrated that discussions had continued between the parties regarding arbitrability and that BellSouth never unequivocally refused to arbitrate. The court found: “Debating the arbitrability of the grievance and keeping the scheduled arbitration are not unequivocal refusals to arbitrate.” The court vacated the summary judgment and remanded to the district court to consider the arbitrability issues raised in the summary judgment briefing.

Communications Workers of America v. BellSouth Telecommunications, LLC, No. 20-14244 (11th Cir. Apr. 20, 2021).