Munich Reinsurance Company (“Munich Re”) initiated arbitration against its reinsurer, Ace Property and Casualty (“Ace”), to recover claims under a reinsurance contract. Ace contended that the amount of the claims was excessive. Each party appointed an arbitrator, and the two party-appointed arbitrators agreed on a pool of names from which an umpire would be selected. Ace then demanded that Munich Re’s counsel, Saul Ewing, voluntarily withdraw from the representing Munich Re in the arbitration, because he had previously represented Ace and possessed potentially prejudicial information. Saul Ewing refused and Ace filed an action in Pennsylvania’s Court of Common Pleas to disqualify him.
Munich Re then filed a Petition for the Appointment of an Umpire in United States District Court. Ace argued that such an appointment would be improper at this time in light of the civil action in Pennsylvania seeking to disqualify Munich Re’s counsel. The District Court stated that “[t][he central issue before me is whether the appointment of an umpire by the Court would move the matter forward despite the pending Pennsylvania action.” Finding that the issue of disqualification was properly before the Pennsylvania court, the Court denied Munich Re's Petition, stating that “although it is clearly within my power to grant a stay [pending the disposition of the Pennsylvania action], there is no articulable benefit to do so since the Pennsylvania court will soon decide the conflict issue” before it. Munich Reinsurance America v. Ace Property & Casualty Ins. Co., Case No. M-82 (HB) (S.D.N.Y. April 10, 2007).