Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

ARBITRATION AWARD WITHOUT A HEARING? COURT SAYS: FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAIR

by

A labor arbitration award was recently vacated in an action involving a dispute between Murphy Oil and United Steelworkers AFL-CIO regarding post-Katrina restoration of an oil facility. Because a key Union witness was prevented from attending the hearing due to health concerns, the parties entered into an agreement that if the arbitrator ruled against Murphy’s, the arbitrator would convene an evidentiary hearing. Following the conference and briefing by both parties, the arbitrator issued an award in favor of the Union. Murphy sought to vacate the award, and the Union sought to enforce the award. Noting the extreme deference paid to arbitration rulings, the court determined that the arbitrator’s failure to convene an evidentiary hearing as per the parties’ agreement was fundamentally unfair, vacated the award and remanded the matter to the arbitrator. Murphy then filed a Motion to Amend asking the court to direct the parties to select a new arbitrator, as the original failed to retain and no longer had jurisdiction. The motion is pending. Murphy Oil USA, Inc. v. United Steel Workers AFL-CIO Local 8363, Case No. 08-3899, (USDC E.D. La. Mar. 4, 2009).

This post written by John Black.

COURT APPROVES ANOTHER SETTLEMENT IN BROKERAGE ANTITRUST MDL ACTION

by

The court in the MDL action involving allegations of improper “contingent commissions” has approved a settlement with the Marsh companies, the preliminary approval of which was reported in a September 4, 2008 post. Marsh is at least the third broker to settle such allegations. The settlement provides for a $69 million fund to be distributed to class members. Marsh may use up to $5 million of the fund to resolve and settle claims of state officials representing policyholders who are potential members of the settlement class. In addition, Marsh may use up to $7 million of the fund to resolve and settle claims of individual plaintiffs in pending actions relating to the same matters that are at issue in the class action. The approved settlement is described in the court’s Memorandum Opinion. At the same time, the court issued a separate Memorandum Opinion granting class counsels’ application for an award of attorneys’ fees, reimbursement of expenses and incentive award payments. Class counsel in the federal proceedings were awarded $14.5 million; class counsel in a concurrent state court class action were awarded $4.5 million. The court entered a Final Judgment on February 17, 2009. An objector has filed a Notice of Appeal to the Third Circuit, appealing the settlement approval.

Shortly thereafter, Marsh filed a motion to enforce the final judgment and order, and to specifically enjoin the pursuit of two state court litigations by settlement class members pursuant to the Anti-Injunction Act and All Writs Act. The grounds for the motion are detailed in Marsh’s Memorandum of Law. In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation, Case No. MDL 1663 (USDC D.N.J. Feb. 17, 2009).

This post written by Brian Perryman.

SECOND CIRCUIT AFFIRMS ORDER COMPELLING ARBITRATION OF CLASS CLAIM

by

The Second Circuit has affirmed an order compelling arbitration and a judgment confirming a final arbitration award. Plaintiff-appellant appealed the order on the basis that the arbitration agreement required arbitration only of his individual claim, but permitted his class claim to be heard in court. The appellant contended that because claims may not be arbitrated as class actions under the rules of the NYSE and the NASD (incorporated by reference in the Settlement Agreement), the parties must have intended any class claims to be litigated in the courts.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Green Tree Financial v. Bazzle, the Second Circuit found that whether an arbitration contract forbids class arbitration falls under the domain of arbitrators, and therefore the district court properly compelled arbitration on the question of the arbitrability of class claims under the Settlement Agreement. The Court also rejected appellant’s claim that the arbitration decision should not have been confirmed because the arbitrators: (1) acted with a lack of fundamental rationality; (2) exceeded the scope of their authority; and (3) acted with manifest disregarded of the law. Vaughn v. Leeds, Morelli & Brown, No. 07-5637 (2d Cir. Mar. 16, 2009).

This post written by Lynn Hawkins.

COURT ORDERS THE REHABILITATION PROCEEDING OF INSURER TERMINATED

by

Hudson, the Superintendent of the Ohio Department of Insurance, in her capacity as Rehabilitator of Colonial Insurance Company (“Colonial”), brought an application for an order, which was subsequently granted, terminating the rehabilitation proceeding of Colonial, authorizing the transfer of funds to the Ohio Department of Commerce, discharging and releasing the Rehabilitator, authorizing the final accounting, authorizing the closing of the estate and the dissolving of the corporate entity, approving the destruction of certain books and records, approving abandonment of physical assets, authorizing the closing of Colonial bank accounts, and authorizing related actions to close the estate or carry out the court’s orders. Hudson v. Colonial Ins. Co., Case No. 03 CVC 01 00597 (Ohio Super. Ct. Dec. 22, 2008).

This post written by Dan Crisp.

VARYING RULINGS WITH RESPECT TO ARBITRATION AWARDS

by

Courts have confirmed and vacated arbitration awards on different bases:

This post written by Rollie Goss.