An arbitration provision required that both parties appoint an arbitrator within 30 days of receipt of written notice from the other party requesting that it do so. Lloyd's appointed an arbitrator timely. The 30th day after receiving such notification for Argonaut fell on the Sunday before Labor Day, and when the appointment was not made by the end of Sunday, Lloyd's appointed a second arbitrtator on Labor Day. Argonaut appointed an arbitrator the following day, claiming that the time for its appointment was extended since its deadline fell on a Sunday, followed by a holiday. The Court disagreed, holding that the agreement to appoint within 30 days was binding, and upheld Lloyd's appointment of two arbitrators. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's v. Argonaut Insurance. Co., Case No. 04-5852 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 8, 2006).
Court addresses standard for vacating awards under the Foreign Arbitral Awards Convention
In a non-insurance matter, a District Court denied a motion to vacate an arbitration award under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. Among the grounds alleged for vacating the award was an undisclosed “relationship” between two of the three arbitrators. HSN Capital LLC v. Productora Y Comercializador de Television, S.A., Case No. 05-1769 (M.D. Fla. July 5, 2006). This case contains a good statement of the standards for vacating an arbitration award under the Foreign Arbitral Awards Convention.
Court of Appeals defers issues of arbitration procedure to arbitrators
In an unreported opinion, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the action of a District Court that declined to become involved in how an arbitration would be conducted, including whether consolidating multiple arbitrations was appropriate. The Court followed Supreme Court precedent in holding that the courts should only decide “gateway issues” such as whether there was a valid agreement to arbitrate, leaving issues relating to arbitration procedure to the arbitrators. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds v. Cravens Dargan & Co., 2006 WL 2337959, Case No. 05-56154 (9th Cir. Aug. 14, 2006).
Insured may not maintain action against reinsurer
A pro se plaintiff had insurance with Chubb Insurance Group, which was reinsured by GE Employers Reinsurance. After her RICO action against Chubb was dismissed, she filed a RICO action against GE. The District Court dismissed the action, based in part on the general rule that an insured can not maintain an action directly against a reinsurer. Kuhn v. Kehrwald, Case No. 05-1228 (E.D. Wis. Aug. 4, 2006). The opinion describes the Plaintiff's submissions as “incoherent and filled with invective ….” Although she alleged that her business suffered a “mysterious loss of funds,” she was convicted of stealing money from the business and its clients.
St. Paul settles broker commission issues
The St. Paul Travelers Companies Inc. has entered into a $77 million settlement with the attorneys general of New York, Connecticut and Illinois, as well as with the New York State Department of Insurance, resolving issues relating to those states' industry-wide investigations into producer compensation, bid rigging, reinsurance tying and finite reinsurance.
While not admitting any wrongdoing, the companies agreed to:
— pay $37 million into a fund for certain excess casualty policyholders and pay $40 million in fines;
— enhance the company's disclosures regarding its producer compensation practices;
— strengthen its ongoing training and education of employees;
— discontinue paying contingent commissions on excess casualty coverage in the United States through 2008; and
— discontinue paying contingent commissions on any line of business if 65 percent of the United States market for that line does not pay such commissions or has signed similar settlement agreements.