• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

  • About
    • Events
  • Articles
    • Treaty Tips
    • Special Focus
    • Market
  • Contact
  • Exclusive Content
    • Blog Staff Picks
    • Cat Risks
    • Regulatory Modernization
    • Webinars
  • Subscribe
You are here: Home / Arbitration / Court Decisions / Texas District Court Finds Arbitration Required in Hurricane Harvey Dispute and That Independent Adjusting Firm May Join in Arbitration

Texas District Court Finds Arbitration Required in Hurricane Harvey Dispute and That Independent Adjusting Firm May Join in Arbitration

June 29, 2020 by Carlton Fields

This action involves plaintiff Living Steward Properties’ insurance claim for property damage caused by Hurricane Harvey. The insurer defendants moved to compel arbitration of the plaintiff’s claims that the insurer defendants underpaid the company for Hurricane Harvey damage.

The insurer defendants argued that this case presented the same arbitration language and the same issues that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas adjudicated in Corpus Christi Island Apartment Villas Management Group, LLC v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, No. 2:19-cv-00188, 2019 WL 8273959 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 18, 2019), in which the court found there existed a written agreement to arbitrate and an unchallenged delegation clause, which required all additional questions be resolved by the arbitrators. Because the plaintiff made no effort to distinguish its case from Corpus Christi Island, the court ordered that the plaintiff’s claims against the insurer defendants be submitted to arbitration.

The plaintiff also sued CJW, the public adjusting firm assigned to its claim, for unfair settlement practices under the Texas Insurance Code and breach of the common law duty of good faith and fair dealing. CJW argued that these claims and their underlying facts were inextricably intertwined with the claims against the insurer defendants such that they all belonged, together, before the arbitrators. CJW sought to compel arbitration of the claims made against it by joining with the insurer defendants to enforce the policy’s arbitration agreement and to extend that agreement to include the extra-contractual claims made against CJW. The court found that equitable estoppel prevented the plaintiff from avoiding the contractual arbitration agreement for claims against CJW, a nonparty to the insurance policy, because the plaintiff relied on the policy in making its claims against CJW, and the claims against both the insurer defendants and CJW were inextricably intertwined.

Because the plaintiff failed to brief any argument against the application of equitable estoppel, the court granted CJW’s joinder and ordered that the plaintiff’s claims against both the insurer defendants and CJW be submitted to arbitration.

Living Steward Properties, Ltd. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, No. 2:20-cv-00001 (S.D. Tex. May 18, 2020).

Filed Under: Arbitration / Court Decisions

Primary Sidebar

Carlton Fields Logo

A blog focused on reinsurance and arbitration law and practice by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Focused Topics

Hot Topics

Read the results of Artemis’ latest survey of reinsurance market professionals concerning the state of the market and their intentions for 2019.

Recent Updates

Market (1/27/2019)
Articles (1/2/2019)

See our advanced search tips.

Subscribe

If you would like to receive updates to Reinsurance Focus® by email, visit our Subscription page.
© 2008–2025 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · Disclaimers and Conditions of Use

Reinsurance Focus® is a registered service mark of Carlton Fields. All Rights Reserved.

Please send comments and questions to the Reinsurance Focus Administrators

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.