Reinsurance Focus

The Seventh Circuit recently reversed a lower court’s decision to vacate a portion of an arbitration award in a patent dispute that the lower court found to be a “manifest disregard of the law.” The Seventh Circuit explained that “manifest disregard” is not an independent basis for vacatur, and can only support vacatur to the extent it reflects that arbitrators “exceeded their powers” under the applicable contract. Here, the underlying arbitration was authorized to determine the inventorship of certain patents, and the lower court failed to identify any manner in which the arbitrators exceeded that contractual authority. Noting that arbitrators are free to act without issuing written opinions, the Seventh Circuit held that the lower court committed a “logical error” by inferring “from silence” that the arbitrators relied on an extra-contractual ground. “Silence,” the Seventh Circuit explained, “is just silence.” Affymax, Inc. v. Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 11-2070 (7th Cir. Oct. 3, 2011).

This post written by Michael Wolgin.

On May 25, 2011, we reported on the denial of Northwestern National Insurance Co.’s petition to appoint a replacement arbitrator after opponent INSCO’s appointed arbitrator resigned in protest to perceived partiality by Northwestern’s appointee. The court has now disqualified INSCO’s counsel for improperly procuring from its former appointee, and then hiding, internal emails between members of the panel containing deliberations in the ongoing arbitration. INSCO’s counsel had requested the documents to substantiate its allegations that Northwestern’s appointed arbitrator was biased. The court found that it, rather than the panel, was the proper entity to determine attorney discipline and that INSCO’s counsel’s actions constituted “a serious violation of arbitral guidelines, as well as ethical rules.” Northwestern National Insurance Co. v. INSCO, Ltd., Case No. 1:11-cv-01124 (USDC S.D.N.Y. Oct. 3, 2011).

This post written by Michael Wolgin.

IRB-Brasil and National Indemnity Company recently filed cross petitions concerning the ongoing arbitration between the parties. The arbitration arises out of a dispute over reinsurance policies issued by NICO to IRB. IRB sought to stay the arbitration, to disqualify NICO’s appointed arbitrator, and to appoint one in his place. It sought further to consolidate the two arbitration proceedings pending between the parties. In the alternative, IRB sought to form an arbitration panel to determine whether the arbitrations should be consolidated. NICO, for its part, sought to designate a neutral third-party arbitrator in one of the pending arbitrations. The court denied all petitions, concluding that under the Federal Arbitration Act it was not authorized to disqualify an arbitrator chosen in accordance with the parties agreement to arbitrate. The agreement specified only that the arbitrators be “active or retired officers of insurance or reinsurance companies,” a criterion that had been fulfilled. All other decisions before the Court stemmed from this conclusion and the petitions were accordingly denied. IRB-Brasil Resseguros v. National Indem. Co., No. 11-1965 (USDC S.D.N.Y. Oct. 6, 2011).

This post written by John Black.

Subway International B.V., a Netherlands-based franchisor of Subway sandwich stores, brought three actions in Connecticut federal court, seeking enforcement of arbitration awards secured against certain Greek franchisees for breach of their respective franchise agreements. The franchisees had each separately brought actions to vacate the awards in New York State Supreme Court, and they each moved to transfer the Connecticut cases filed by Subway to that venue. The Court denied each of the motions to transfer, holding that it had no authority under federal procedural statutes to transfer actions to state court. In one of the actions, however, the Court granted a motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process. Subway Int’l B.V. v. Cere, Case No. 10-01713 (USDC D. Conn. Aug. 11, 2011), Subway Int’l B.V. v. P. Bletas and J. Bletas, Case No. 10-01714 (USDC D. Conn. Aug. 11, 2011); and Subway Int’l B.V. v. P. Bletas, Case No. 10-01715 (USDC D. Conn. Aug. 11, 2011).

This post written by John Pitblado.

General Motors stripped franchisee Glen West of his stock and removed him as president and operator of one of its dealerships because West was allegedly self dealing and failing to keep proper records. West filed an action in state court seeking an injunction preventing General Motors from disposing of his dealership and an order reinstating him as president. General Motors removed the case to federal court and subsequently moved to compel arbitration, citing an arbitration agreement that the parties had executed when they entered into their first stockholders’ agreement in 2008. West argued that his claims were governed by a 2010 dealer sales and services agreement, and a 2010 stockholders agreement, both of which did not incorporate or reference the terms of the arbitration agreement. The court, however, compelled arbitration, finding that the parties had agreed to arbitrate any claim arising from any other agreement they entered into “whether executed before or after this Arbitration Agreement.” West v. Gen. Motors LLC, Case No. 3:11-00819 (USDC D.N.J. June 7, 2011) motion for reconsideration denied (Aug. 5, 2011).

This post written by Ben Seessel.

Republic Mortgage Insurance issued policies to lender Countrywide insuring against default by Countrywide’s borrowers. Each policy contained an arbitration clause providing that Countrywide “may elect to settle by arbitration a controversy, dispute, or other assertion of liability or rights which it initiates arising out of or relating to this policy.” A dispute arose after Republic denied claims, contending that coverage had been rescinded due to misrepresentations allegedly made by Countrywide in applying for the policies and by its borrowers in applying for loans. Republic filed suit in state court seeking a declaration that its rescissions were consistent with policy terms; Countrywide moved to compel arbitration. Republic opposed the motion, arguing that Republic had “initiated” the dispute, and that the arbitration provision only requires disputes that Countrywide “initiates” to be arbitrated. The trial court rejected this argument and granted Countrywide’s motion to compel. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Republic’s proposed interpretation would frustrate the purpose of the agreement. The court also noted how Republic’s interpretation is commercially unreasonable because it would promote procedural gamesmanship, i.e., attempting to avoid arbitration by filing a declaratory judgment action before Countrywide filed a demand for arbitration. Republic Mortgage Ins. Co. v. Countrywide Fin. Corp., No. 06292 (N.Y. App. Div. August 18, 2011).

This post written by Ben Seessel.

Plaintiff brought a putative class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991. Plaintiff claimed that she received numerous debt collection calls to her cell phone, notwithstanding that she never owned a credit card issued by Citibank. Citibank moved to compel arbitration, arguing that plaintiff held a ConocoPhilips branded credit card it had issued and that plaintiff’s written card agreement contained a governing arbitration clause. The court denied Citibank’s motion to compel, holding that Citibank had produced only representative samples of card agreements in support of its motion, and insufficient information to link such a card agreement to an account held by plaintiff. Gonzalez v. Citigroup, Inc., Case No. 2:11-00795 (USDC E.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2011).

This post written by Ben Seessel.

Arrowood Indemnity Co. filed suit in state court, complaining that Clearwater Insurance Co. failed to name three neutral umpire candidates in accordance with the parties’ arbitration agreement. Arrowood asked the court to issue orders facilitating the designation of a neutral arbitrator. Clearwater moved to dismiss, arguing that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the FAA, which undisputedly governed, does not allow for pre-award challenges to an arbitration panel. The court denied Clearwater’s motion, holding that the FAA does not preclude state court involvement in procedural pre-arbitration matters and that it should intervene to facilitate the selection of a neutral arbitrator to protect the integrity of the arbitration process. To court directed the parties to schedule an evidentiary hearing where Clearwater could make challenges to a slate of neutral arbitrators proposed by Arrowood. Arrowood Indem. Co. v. Clearwater Ins. Co., Case No. 11-6018055-S (Conn. Super. Ct. July 26, 2011).

This post written by Ben Seessel.

Manifest Disregard:

Protherapy Associates, LLC v. AFS of Bastian, Inc., Case No. 6:10cv00017 (USDC W.D. Va. July 27, 2011) (granting motion to confirm award; denying motion to modify award; no manifest disregard of law; arbitration decision that found joint and several liability did not conflict with related judicial opinion that elected not to pierce corporate veil);

International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local Union 177 v. United Parcel Service, Inc., Case No. 2:11cv00180 (USDC D.N.J. Aug. 11, 2011) (denying motion to vacate award; arbitrator relied on evidence and did not exceed powers; no “manifest disregard” of underlying collective bargaining agreement where arbitrator’s interpretation was not “totally unsupported” by general contract principles);

Johnson v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc., Case No. 3:05cv00321 (USDC D. Nev. Aug. 17, 2011) (granting in part motion to vacate award on remand from Ninth Circuit; damages award under the Fair Credit Reporting Act was “manifest disregard” to the extent it conflicted with court’s prior holding that certain foreclosure fees were paid for a business purpose and not a consumer purpose);

Priority One Services, Inc. v. W&T Travel Services, LLC, Case No. 1:10cv01873 (USDC D.D.C. Aug. 23, 2011) (granting in part motion to vacate award; panel’s award of prejudgment interest was an “evident material miscalculation” requiring modification; court need not resolve whether “manifest disregard” is valid basis for vacatur because no showing panel otherwise acted improperly in applying state law and calculating damages);

Amaprop Ltd. v. Indiabulls Financial Services Ltd., Case No. 1:11cv02001 (USDC S.D.N.Y. Sept. 9, 2011) (granting petition to confirm arbitration award; no “manifest disregard” where arbitrator’s analysis justified award and party failed to oppose petition);

Sussex v. Turnberry/MGM Grand Towers, LLC, Case No. 2:08cv00773 (USDC D. Nev. Sept. 15, 2011) (denying motion to vacate award and motion for reconsideration; no “manifest disregard” for arbitrator’s determination that plaintiffs could not proceed as a class; reconsideration denied where new case law did not change the law);

Jurisdiction:

Powerweb Energy, Inc. v. GE Lighting Systems, Inc., Case No. 2:10cv02652 (USDC E.D. Pa. Sept. 2, 2011) (granting motion for remand to state court of petition to vacate award; jurisdiction cannot be based on federal issues absent from complaint that would arise only upon vacatur of award or based on counts of counterclaim);

Northland Truss System, Inc. v. Henning Construction Co., Case No. 4:11cv00216 (USDC S.D. Iowa Sept. 7, 2011) (dismissing petition to vacate arbitrator’s order joining seller of construction materials to arbitration between barn owner and builder; no jurisdiction where allegation of manifest disregard of federal law was “patently meritless”; noting that Eight Circuit has not determined whether claim for manifest disregard of federal law confers jurisdiction; plaintiff failed to state claim because FAA does not authorize vacatur of arbitration orders).

Procedure:

Pearl Seas Cruises, LLC v. Irving Shipbuilding, Inc., Case No. 3:11cv00201 (USDC D. Conn. Aug. 9, 2011) (granting motion to dismiss petition to vacate interim award; prior to final award, party’s claim of undue delay was for panel, not for court);

Atlantic City Electric Co. v. Estate of Jerry Riccardo, Case No. 2:09cv03573 (USDC E.D. Pa. Aug. 11, 2011) (granting summary judgment in action to set aside award due to misrepresentations related to health of accident victim; fraud claims were time-barred; under Pennsylvania law, “regardless of whether the arbitration at issue is a statutory or common law arbitration, the thirty (30) day time limit within which to challenge the award applies”);

International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local No. 264 & 375 v. Nason’s Delivery, Inc., Case No. 1:11cv00186 (USDC W.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2011) (denying unions’ motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order to enforce relief awarded in arbitration against employer liquidating its assets; unions failed to show irreparable harm of employer’s liquidation and likelihood of success of petition to confirm award under N.Y. General Associations Law).

Evident Partiality:

Plastic Recovery Technologies, Co. v. Samson, Case No. 1:11cv02643 (USDC N.D. Ill. July 28, 2011) (denying motion to vacate award; no evident partiality despite arbitrator’s knowledge of party’s refusal to pay fees).

FINRA:

McCafferty v. A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc., Case No. 2:11cv00517 (USDC D.N.J. Aug. 11, 2011) (granting motion to dismiss and cross-motion to confirm award; alleged violation of N.J. whistleblower statute was not a “statutory employment discrimination claim” under FINRA; arbitration panel did not lack jurisdiction or exceed powers by including a “non-public” arbitrator on the panel).

Due Process:

First American Title Insurance Co. v. Ordin, Case No. B226671 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 14, 2011) (affirming confirmation of awards; plaintiff failed to show it was “substantially prejudiced” by arbitrator’s alleged refusal to hear relevant evidence and to permit supplemental briefing).

This post written by Michael Wolgin.

Arbitration was denied in a putative class action lawsuit for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act brought by two cell phone users against Collecto Inc., a collection agency contracted by Verizon and AT&T. Collecto was not a party to the underlying cell phone service contracts between the plaintiffs and cell phone carriers, but sought to enforce the contracts’ respective arbitration provisions based on the doctrines of agency and estoppel. The court applied the two-prong test in the Supreme Court’s Stolt Nielsen decision, which requires a non-signatory seeking to compel arbitration to show (1) that there are “intertwined factual issues” between the claims asserted and the agreement, and (2) that there is a relationship among the parties that justifies estoppel. While the court found that the first pong was met, it found that the second prong failed because the relationship between Collecto and the cell phone carriers was not “sufficiently close” to warrant estoppel. The court made this determination because no corporate relationship existed between Collecto and the carriers, the underlying contracts between Collecto and the carriers expressly disclaimed any agency relationship, and plaintiffs contended that Collecto had acted without valid authorization from the carriers. The court concluded that although “the FAA strongly favors arbitration, the applicable rule recognized in this case – that a party cannot be forced to arbitrate without agreeing to do so – must succeed.” Butto v. Collecto, Inc., Case No. 10-cv-2906 (USDC E.D.N.Y. Aug. 15, 2011).

This post written by Michael Wolgin.