Reinsurance Focus

Manifest Disregard:

Amway Global v. Woodward, Case No. 09-12946 (USDC E.D. Mich. Sept. 30, 2010) (rejecting multiple manifest disregard of law challenges, including that arbitrator, in applying Michigan law, failed to follow Fifth Circuit ruling that plaintiff’s standard agreement was illusory and unenforceable under Texas law)

Church Insurance Co. v. Ace Property & Casualty Insurance Co., Case No. 10-00698 (USDC S.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 2010) (granting unopposed petition to confirm award; court’s independent review found no evidence of manifest disregard)

Exceeding Arbitrators’ Authority:

Wachovia Securities, LLC v. Brand, Case No. 08-02349(USDC D.S.C. Aug. 26, 2010) (granting motion to confirm award; panel did not exceed authority to make award under South Carolina Frivolous Civil Proceedings Sanctions Act)

Ike America, LLC v. Kredit Karte, Inc., Case No. 10-03153 (USDC E.D. Pa. Sept. 1, 2010) (granting motion to confirm award; rejecting argument that award was improper because the award creditor’s sole shareholder was an Italian national whose immigration status did not allow him to collect income from the award, and argument that arbitrator exceeded authority because part of the award held the award debtor responsible for the actions of a non-party)

Octagon, Inc. v. Richards, Case No. 10-00652 (USDC E.D. Va. Oct. 5, 2010) (holding that because an arbitration agreement severable from an unlawful agreement covered the dispute, the matter was arbitrable, and because the dispute was of the type contemplated by both parties to be submitted to arbitration, the arbitrator did not exceed her powers)

Choice of Law:

Eyewonder, Inc. v. Abraham, Case No. 08-03579 (USDC S.D.N.Y. Sept. 3, 2010) (California rules governing unconscionability of employment agreement did not apply where sufficient contacts supported “a sufficiently reasonable relationship between New York and the transaction”)

Remand for Clarification:

Ernest v. Lockheed Martin Corp., Case No. 07-02038 (USDC D. Colo. Sept. 1, 2010) (denying motion to partially vacate arbitration award and motion to confirm arbitration award to allow remand to arbitrator for a mutual, final and definite award on the limited issue of back pay damages; observing that remand for clarification is necessary when there is more than one reasonable interpretation of the arbitration panel’s award)

Personal Jurisdiction:

NGC Network Asia, LLC v. Pac Pacific Group International, Inc., Case No. 09-08684 (USDC S.D.N.Y. Sept. 20, 2010) (denying motion to transfer, stay or dismiss petition; movant agreed to arbitrate in New York and thus also consented to personal jurisdiction and venue there)

Claim Preclusion:

Belmont Partners, LLC v. Mina Mar Group, Inc., Case No. 10-00005 (USDC W.D. Va. Oct. 1, 2010) (granting motion to confirm the arbitration award and denying motions to suspend and vacate the award; judgment by Canadian court had claim preclusive effect barring this court from deciding whether to modify or vacate the award)

Timeliness of Motion to Vacate:

R&Q Reinsurance Co. v. American Motorist Insurance Co., Case No. 10-02825 (USDC N.D. Ill. Oct. 14, 2010) (denying motion to vacate as untimely since it was filed one day after the “three month” deadline in Federal Arbitration Act section 12, declining to read “three months” to mean ninety days)

Arbitrator Bias:

CRC, Inc. v. Computer Sciences Corp., Case No. 10-04981 (USDC S.D.N.Y. Oct. 14, 2010) (rejecting motion for vacatur of a partial arbitration award and disqualification of the American Arbitration Association panel that issued it based on assertion of arbitrator bias due to professional connections between the arbitrator’s law firm and the law firm representing the respondent)

This post written by Brian Perryman.