Reinsurance Focus

PCH Mutual Insurance Company (“PCH”), a risk retention group providing insurance to assisted living facilities, entered into an Administrative Services Agreement with Casualty & Surety, Inc. (“CSI”), a wholesale insurance broker and program manager. The Agreement’s arbitration provision stated that: “Any disputes . . . may be submitted to binding arbitration. The prevailing party shall be entitled to recover all costs incurred, including reasonable attorneys fees.” After PCH filed suit (alleging breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment), CSI moved to compel arbitration. The court denied the motion to compel arbitration, holding the arbitration provision was ambiguous and could be read to contemplate permissive arbitration. The court focused on the use of the term “may,” which indicated that arbitration was not required, particularly when juxtaposed with the term “shall,” which signaled that payment of costs to the prevailing party was compulsory. The court also cited the lack of specifics regarding arbitration procedure in the Agreement, further indicating ambiguity to the court. For example, the Agreement did not identify an arbitrator or provide a method for choosing one.

In a separate order issued the same day, the court granted PCH’s motion to amend the complaint to add a claim that CSI had improperly issued occurrence based endorsements, in contravention of underwriting guidelines that limited PCH’s coverage to claims made policies. The court rejected CSI’s argument that PCH’s motion to amend should be denied because of CSI’s “contractual expectancy for arbitration,” finding that it was “dubious” whether a pending motion to compel arbitration could constitute grounds for rejecting a motion to amend the complaint, and, furthermore, CSI had failed to establish that the parties had agreed to mandatory arbitration. The court also held that the proposed amendment would not be futile, and was not offered in bad faith or untimely. PCH Mutual Insurance Co., v. Casualty & Surety, Inc., Case No. 08-00282 (USDC D.D.C. Nov. 11, 2010).

This post written by Ben Seessel.