In another of a series of cases involving Lloyd's enforcing UK judgments against Names for Equitas reinsurance premium, after losing on a summary judgment motion that enforced the UK judgment, a Name moved to set aside the judgment based upon an exchange rate provision. Finding the District Court did not err by applying the Utah Uniform Foreign-Money Claims Act, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the denial of the motion. Society of Lloyd's v. Bennett, Case No. 05-4069 (10th Cir. June 2, 2006). This appears to be one of those cases in which a party simply will not give up. Having lost in the English Courts and in the US District Court, while an appeal was pending to the Tenth Circuit, the Names sought to vacate or modify the District Court's Order by filing a Rule 60 motion. Even this case appears to be near an end.
Names lose exchange rate issue with Lloyd’s
In another of a series of cases involving Lloyd's enforcing UK judgments against Names for Equitas reinsurance premium, after losing on a summary judgment motion that enforced the UK judgment, a Name moved to set aside the judgment based upon an exchange rate provision. Finding the District Court did not err by applying the Utah Uniform Foreign-Money Claims Act, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the denial of the motion. Society of Lloyd's v. Bennett, Case No. 05-4069 (10th Cir. June 2, 2006). This appears to be one of those cases in which a party simply will not give up. Having lost in the English Courts and in the US District Court, while an appeal was pending to the Tenth Circuit, the Names sought to vacate or modify the District Court's Order by filing a Rule 60 motion. Even this case appears to be near an end.
Wisconsin Supreme Court vacates arbitration award
Construing the Wisconsin arbitration statute, the Wisconsin Supreme Court vacated an arbitration award in a dispute between Allstate Insurance Company and a policyholder on the basis that a party-appointed arbitrator demonstrated evident partiality. Borst v. Allstate Insurance Co., Case No. 2004 AP 2004 (Wisc. June 13, 2006). The arbitrator appointed by Allstate was an attorney who had a “substantial, ongoing attorney/client relationship with Allstate.” Even though the relationship was disclosed, and all parties were aware of the relationship going into the arbitration hearing, the Court found that disclosure and knowledge did not avoid the prohibition of such a relationship under Wisconsin law. The Court also strictly limited the permissible discovery depositions to those permitted by the Wisconsin statute.
Court confirms arbitration award despite statute of limitation plea
An NASD arbitration panel entered an award in favor of Wachovia Securities. When the pending case was dismissed, Wachovia filed a separate action for confirmation of the award pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act. The defendant opposed confirmation on the basis that the FAA requires that a request for confirmation be filed within one year of the date of the award. The Court disagreed, finding that binding Eighth Circuit law held that the one year period was permissive, and not mandatory, and that it would not enforce the bar since Wachovia had moved to confirm the award in the prior action, prior to its dismissal. Wachovia Securities, LLC v. Riddle, Case No. 06-233 (USDC D. Neb. July 26, 2006). The Court noted that there was a conflict on this issue between different panels of the Eighth Circuit.
Court of Appeal vacates arbitration award as being in manifest disregard of law
In an action filed by an insurance agent against John Hancock Mutual Life and two affiliates, Patten v. Signator Insurance Agency, Inc., Case No. 05-1148 (4th Cir. March 13, 2006), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacated a District Court decision denying a motion to vacate an arbitration award filed by an insurance agent, finding that the arbitration award failed to draw its essence from the governing arbitration agreement and was made in manifest disregard of law. The Court found that the arbitrator disregarded an unambigous provision in the agreement containing an arbitration clause by implying a one year statute of limitation into the arbitration agreement, where the agreement did not contain any limitation agreement, but an earlier, superceded agreement, did contain a one year limitation provision. Applicable law provided either a three or a six year limitation period.