Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

Vacation of arbitration awards due to failure to follow arbitration agreement

by

Two opinions recently have addressed the issue of whether an arbitration award should be vacated when the arbitrators fail to follow the arbitration agreement.

  • In Martin v. Wells Fargo Financial, Inc., 2006 WL 2466945, Case No. 05-00003 (9th Cir. Aug. 25, 2006), the Court of Appeals affirmed a District Court decision vacating an arbitration award “because the underlying arbitrations were not conducted in accordance with the terms of the parties' arbitration agreement.”  This unreported opinion is not available on Pacer, and it does not reveal what the Court of Appeals viewed as the deficiencies in the arbitration.

  • In Allstate Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, 2006 WL 2473419 (Cal.Ct.App. Aug. 29, 2006), the Court reversed the vacation of an award on the basis that the panel rendered a “reasoned” award when the arbitration agreement provided that the award should not state reasons.  Instead of vacating the award, the Court directed that the “reasons” be stricken from the confirmed award as surplusage.

Disclaimer

by

The materials on this blog are made available by Carlton Fields LLP for informational purposes only and are not legal advice. The transmission and receipt of information contained on or relating to this blog do not form, constitute or create an attorney-client relationship. Persons receiving the information on this blog should not act upon such information without seeking professional legal counsel.

Neither the choice of what material to present in this blog, nor the text of descriptions and comments in blog posts, represent the legal opinions of Carlton Fields or its clients. Blog posts may not be quoted, nor positions in blog posts cited, by lawyers, law firms or others in any context without the express written approval of Carlton Fields.

The materials on this blog represent very selective items of possible interest to those in the reinsurance field, and may not reflect the most current legal developments. Links within the Reinsurance Focus blog may lead to other sites. The Reinsurance Focus blog does not incorporate any materials appearing in such linked sites by reference, and Carlton Fields does not necessarily sponsor, endorse or otherwise approve of such linked materials.

The hiring of an attorney is an important decision that should not be based solely upon advertisements. Before you decide, ask us to send you free written information about our qualifications and experience.

California court vacates arbitration award involving insurer in liquidation

by

A California Court of Appeal has reversed an order of a Liquidation Court, directing it to vacate an arbitration award that rescinded a reinsurance contract where the reinsureds had been placed in liquidation by the California Insurance Commissioner. The Court had no difficulty with the rescission of the reinsurance, but took exception with the panel's action of imposing a set-off of approximately $4.5 million against the accompanying return of premium by the reinsurer to the company in liquidation. The Court of Appeals held that the set-off award violated an injunction issued when the reinsureds were placed in liquidation, which prohibited any party from maintaining any claims, or asserting any right of set-off, against the parties in liquidation. Garamendi v. California Compensation Ins. Co., 2005 WL 3485747 (Cal.Ct.App. 2 Dist. Jan. 20, 2006). Since the arbitration award only provided the amount of the payment due to the reinsureds, which was net of the set-off amount, the Court could not determine the amount of premium that should be returned. It therefore remanded the matter to the Liquidation Court, with directions that it order a new arbitration hearing.

SPECIAL FOCUS: multiple arbitrations

by

Courts are sometimes asked to consolidate mutliple arbitrations relating to insurance and reinsurance matters. This issue has been the topic of three recent court opinions.

  • In Markel International Ins. Co. v. Westchester Fire Ins. Co., Case No. 05-5522 (Aug. 10, 2006), the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey found that since the issue of the type of arbitration proceeding, including whether multiple arbitrations should be consolidated, was not a “gateway” issue under the Supreme Court’s analysis in Green Tree Financial Corp. v. Bazzle, 539, U.S. 444 (2003), the arbitrators, rather than the courts, should decide whether to use multiple arbitration panels or a consolidated panel.
  • In Allstate Ins. Co. v. Global Reinsurance Corp., Case No. 06-4419 (Aug. 8, 2006), the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York held that arbitrators should decide whether to consolidate two arbitrations related to two facultative reinsurance certificates.  The Court strongly implied that if the reinsurance agreements contained a provision relating to consolidated arbitrations, that the Court could have acted to enforce whatever the parties had agreed to in that regard.
  • In Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s v. Westchester Fire Ins., Case No. 06-1457, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit currently is accepting briefing of an appeal of a decision of a District Court decision that required separate arbitration panels in multiple arbitrations.  The briefs suggest that conflict exists on this issue between a pre-Bazzle unreported Third Circuit opinion and a post-Bazzle Seventh Circuit opinion.

Expect further developments in this area.