Two Courts rule on Arbitrator Appointment Disputes
After the parties had appointed arbitrators in a reinsurance dispute, and proposed several names to the party-appointed arbitrators for their consideration as umpire, a dispute arose as to whether the parties had agreed to extend the time to provide additional names for consideration as umpire. A motion was filed to resolve the issue. The Court determined that one of the persons already selected should be appointed due to his connections with the parties or counsel on both sides of the dispute. Glacier Reinsurance AG v. Odyssey American Reinsurance Corp., Case No. 07-583 (USDC D. Conn. June 27, 2007).
An unusual situation was presented in Baylor Univ. Medical Center v. GE Group Life Assur. Co., Case No. 06-103 (USDC N.D. Tex. June 12, 2007), which had one Plaintiff and multiple Defendants. The arbitration was governed by the rules of the American Arbitration Association. The agreement stated that each party would appoint an arbitrator. The AAA interpreted this to require that the three Defendants jointly agree upon and appoint one arbitrator. Some of the Defendants disagreed with this interpretation. The Court decided that since the parties had consented to the authority of the AAA, that the AAA’s interpretation of the agreement controlled. The Court appointed one arbitrator on behalf of all of the Defendants.
