Reinsurance Focus

A dispute involving competing actions between two competing aeroponic farming companies, FarmedHere, LLC and Just Greens, LLC (doing business as Aero Farm Systems), was simultaneously at issue in a New York arbitration, a New York state court, and a Chicago federal court. Aero Farm had originally demanded arbitration in New York based on an arbitration clause in a distribution agreement between Aero Farm and a company affiliated with FarmedHere. In response, FarmedHere filed a petition to stay the arbitration in the New York court, contending that it was not a party to the distribution agreement, and a separate case in Chicago alleging unfair trade practices and seeking a declaration regarding certain patented aeroponic farming technology. Aero Farm then moved to dismiss the Chicago action, contending that (1) FarmedHere assumed obligations under the distribution agreement, (2) FarmedHere’s claims were therefore subject to the arbitration clause, and (3) the proper jurisdiction under the FAA to determine arbitrability was New York (where the arbitration was pending), and not Chicago. After a review of the evidence, the court agreed with Aero Farm and dismissed the Chicago proceedings without prejudice. FarmedHere can attempt to refile its claims in Chicago if the New York court determines that FarmedHere’s claims are not arbitrable. FarmedHere, LLC v. Jut Greens, LLC, Case No. 14 C 370 (USDC N.D. Ill. June 16, 2014).

This post written by Michael Wolgin.

See our disclaimer.

A federal court in California recently rejected efforts to remove a state court arbitration confirmation proceeding to federal court. The underlying royalties dispute had been addressed in an arbitration, and ultimately the dispute arrived in California state court in a proceeding to confirm the arbitration award. The defendant opposed the petition for confirmation and filed a separate petition to vacate or modify the award. That pleading included a count for “Declaratory Judgment for No Liability under Federal Patent Laws.” Based on the assertion of federal relief in its own petition, the defendant filed a notice of removal. The federal court rejected the defendant’s assertion of jurisdiction and remanded the case back to state court. The court concluded that there was no subject matter jurisdiction — despite the patent-related request for relief — due to the limited nature of the proceedings before the state court. The court determined that the declaratory judgment count did not belong in the state court action in the first place, and it ruled that issues of patent law need not be decided to resolve the limited issues presented in the case. In sum, the court refused to allow the defendant “to create jurisdiction where none can possibly exist in order to bring a properly-situated case before a new forum.”

Amkor Tech., Inc. v. Tessera, Inc., 5:14-CV-03604 EJD, 2014 WL 4467715 (USDC N.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2014).

This post written by Catherine Acree.

See our disclaimer.

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a trial court order denying an employer’s motion to compel arbitration of a wage dispute under the arbitration clause contained in the plaintiffs’ Confidentiality/Non-Compete Agreement. The plaintiff employees brought suit against their employer, an oil-rig servicer, under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Oklahoma Protection of Labor Act. The employer moved to compel arbitration under a provision in the parties’ non-compete agreements. The plaintiffs argued – successfully to the trial court – that the wage disputes did not come within the purview of the arbitration provision, which, although in an agreement that related mostly to non-compete and confidentiality issues, nevertheless contained a broad clause mandating arbitration of “any dispute.” The Tenth Circuit noted that, while the scope of the parties’ contract was narrow, the scope of the arbitration provision was broad, and that, under the Supreme Court’s decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, and the broad federal policy favoring arbitration embodied in the FAA, it was constrained to enforce the agreement. It remanded with instructions to compel arbitration. Sanchez v. Nitro-Lift Technologies, LLC, Nos. 12-7046 and 12-7057 (10th Cir. Aug. 8, 2014).

This post written by John Pitblado.

See our disclaimer.

The appeal arose from a lawsuit to clarify an arbitration award concerning an alleged breach of a corporate merger agreement containing a binding arbitration clause. The federal district court found the arbitration panel had exceeded its authority under that arbitration clause by failing to provide sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding a damages claim. The district court therefore remanded the case back to the panel for consideration of that issue and clarification of the award. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit held that because the district court neither confirmed nor vacated the award, the order was not final, a point on which the dissent strongly disagreed, and it therefore did not have appellate jurisdiction over the order. The court further reasoned that it was necessary to decline jurisdiction to avoid generating piecemeal appeals and in light of the court’s deferential standard of review of arbitration awards. Murchison Capital Partners, L.P., et al. v. Nuance Communications, Inc., No. 13-10852 (5th Cir. July 25, 2014).

This post written by Renee Schimkat.

See our disclaimer.

The Court for the Middle District of Louisiana upheld a magistrate’s ruling denying a motion to remand filed by the Louisiana Commerce and Trade Association of Self Insurer’s Fund (“LCTA”), holding that the defendant foreign reinsurers (“Reinsurers”) properly removed the state court action under the Convention of the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (“New York Convention”) which Congress implemented under the Convention Act, 9 U.S.C. §§201-208. In so holding, the Court first found it had subject matter jurisdiction under the Convention Act and rejected LTCA’s argument that, because the issue of arbitrability was not raised below, the state court action did not “relate to” an arbitration as required by the New York Convention. Noting the extraordinary breadth of the New York Convention, the Court found that because LTCA’s claim against the Reinsurers arose under the Reinsurance Contract which included an arbitration clause, the state court action thus related to the arbitration clause. The Court also noted that a party is not required to first move to compel arbitration before it is permitted to remove the action and, in any case, the Reinsurers in this case had advised the state court that they intended to remove the action.

The Court then turned to LTCA’s contractual argument that the Reinsurers waived their right to remove under the Service-of-Suit Clause in the Reinsurance Contract. In this case, the Service-of-Suit clause provided that the Reinsurers agreed to submit to the jurisdiction of a court of competent jurisdiction within the United States in the event they failed to pay any amount claimed under the Reinsurance Contract. The Service-of-Suit Clause, however, further provided that nothing contained in that provision constituted a waiver of the Reinsurer’s right to remove the action to a United States District Court. The Court found that this provision was not an explicit, clear, and unequivocal waiver of the right to remove, as required under applicable law, and further found it expressly and sufficiently reserved the Reinsurer’s right to removal. Louisiana Commerce and Trade Association Self-Insurers Fund v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London Subscribing to Contract Number A1430B600/A2430B600, No 13-700-JJB-RLB (M.D. La. July 15, 2014), affirming and adopting Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations dated May 6, 2014.

This post written by Leonor Lagomasino.

See our disclaimer.

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals and a federal district court in Michigan have each issued opinions on motions to compel arbitration. In the Michigan opinion, the court granted a motion for summary judgment, in favor of the defendant, Consolidated Insurance Company, and denied the plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration. The plaintiff, the representative of the decedent’s estate, sought to recover uninsured motorist benefits under a commercial vehicle policy issued to decedent’s employer. Prior negotiations between the parties resulted in a written agreement to arbitrate the matter. Before arbitration commenced, the defendants canceled the process, arguing that the issue was not arbitral. The defendant’s cancellation was deemed valid based on intervening caselaw holding that coverage did not extend to individuals injured while outside a vehicle. Since the decedent was outside of his truck at the time he was killed, the issue of coverage could not be arbitrated. Johnston v. Indiana Insurance Co., Case No. 13-10797 (USDC E.D. Mich. Feb 11, 2014).

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court’s denial to compel arbitration, finding that since none of the defendant board members signed an agreement with an arbitration clause, they could not be compelled to arbitrate. The court further held that the plaintiff’s alternative legal theories to compel arbitration were forfeited or waived. Genberg v. Porter, No. 13-1140 (10th Cir. May 12, 2014).

This post written by Rollie Goss.

See our disclaimer.

Establishing that a federal court has jurisdiction to hear an arbitration dispute is not always easy. The Fourth Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of an action seeking to vacate an arbitration award based upon lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff attempted to show that the nexus between her claims and “commerce” fell within the realm of the FAA, and therefore there was a federal question under §1331. However, she failed to raise that argument below, so it was not properly before the court of appeal, and the Court found it to be unavailing in any event. Ball v. Stylecraft Homes, LLC, No. 13-1946 (4th Cir. Mar. 26, 2014)

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the denial of a motion to remand for lack of jurisdiction. The issue was whether diversity jurisdiction was defeated because the action was a direct action against an insurer, defeating diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1332(c). The Court held that it was not a direct action, and affirmed the district court’s order compelling arbitration. Kong v. Allied Professional Insurance Company, No. 13-12305 (11th Cir. May 9, 2014)

This post written by Rollie Goss.

See our disclaimer.

There have been a number of recent court opinions enforcing class arbitration waivers, compelling individual arbitration and denying class arbitration, with the lone exception being a California Court of Appeal opinion which, in conflict with an opinion from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, distinguished Concepcion and found a waiver of class arbitration to be unenforceable.

Alakozai v. Chase Investment Services Corp., No. 12-55553 (9th Cir. Feb. 7, 2014) (Affirming denial of motion to compel arbitration of class action claims, finding class arbitration exclusion in FINRA rules was not incorporated explicitly into parties’ agreement, potentially allowing for arbitration of class action claims in another arbitral forum).

Hickey v. Brinker Nat’l Payroll Company, LP, 1:13-cv-00951 (USDC D. Colo. Feb. 18 2014) (granting motion to compel individual arbitration of employees’ claims against employer, rejecting claims that agreement with class arbitration waiver was unenforceable under NLRA or was otherwise unenforceable as unconscionable or against public policy).

Michael Appelbaum v. AutoNation Inc., SACV 13-01927 (USDC C.D. Cal. April 8, 2014) (granting motion to compel individual arbitration of employee’s claims against employer, finding class arbitration waiver not unenforceable under NLRA or otherwise unconsionable, substantively or procedurally)

Johnson v. Consumerinfo.com, Inc., No. 11-56520 (9th Cir. March 20, 2014) (dismissing appeal of trial court’s grant of motion to compel individual arbitration of consumer protection claims, finding FAA bars appeals of court orders staying judicial proceedings and compelling arbitration).

Imburgia v. DirectTV, Inc., No. B239361 (Cal. App. Ct. April 7, 2014) (affirming denial of motion to compel individual arbitration, finding choice of law provision which did not explicitly mention FAA, but did mention state law, allowed for interpretation of enforceability issues under state law, despite that result would otherwise be preempted by FAA. The case distinguishes Concepcion, and is in conflict with Ninth Circuit decision in Murphy v. DirectTV, Inc., No. 11-57163 (9th Cir. July 30, 2013), discussed in prior ReinsuranceFocus.com post.

This post written by John Pitblado.

See our disclaimer.

Within weeks of each other, three suits were filed involving overlapping parties and similar claims regarding arbitration of disputes arising from reinsurance agreements between Transatlantic and Continental and between Transatlantic and AIG. In one of the three suits, National Indemnity Company (“NICO”) sought a preliminary injunction in the District of Nebraska enjoining Transatlantic from compelling NICO to arbitration in the other two actions in Illinois and New York. Considering the issue of where NICO’s claims should be resolved, the Nebraska court determined that while it could enjoin Transatlantic from compelling NICO to arbitration, it did not have the authority under the Federal Arbitration Act to compel arbitration under agreements that chose Illinois and New York as the venue for arbitration. The court would not therefore be able to grant complete relief to the parties. Comprehensive resolution could only be achieved by severing NICO’s claims and transferring those relating to the Transatlantic-Continental agreement to the Northern District of Illinois and those relating to the Transatlantic-AIG agreements to the Southern District of New York. National Indemnity Co. v. Transatlantic Reinsurance Co., Case No. 8:14-CV-74 (USDC D. Neb. Mar. 31, 2014).

This post written by Abigail Kortz.

See our disclaimer.

The facts in Jackson v. Sleek Audio, LLC, et. al., Case No. 13-80725-CIV-Marra (S.D. Fla. March 17, 2014) stemmed from an arbitrators award against Curtis Jackson (“Jackson”) in his action against former business associates, Sleek Audio and others (“Sleek”). The arbitrator’s award included an award of attorney’s fees for which, Jackson contended, he lacked authority to award under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §1, et. seq. (“FAA”) and under Florida law.

Following the award by the arbitrator, Jackson brought an action in the Southern District of Florida seeking to vacate the arbitration award and also removed Sleek’s petition in the State Court seeking confirmation of the award. Jackson argued the arbitrator relied on the FAA’s preemption of Florida law in finding authority to award attorney’s fees and, thus, the issue of the FAA’s preemption formed the basis of the federal question jurisdiction. Sleek then moved to dismiss the action to vacate the award and to remand its own action seeking confirmation of the award. The parties agreed there was no diversity of citizenship and the federal court did not have jurisdiction under the FAA.

In its analysis of federal question jurisdiction, the Court first restated the principle that only complete preemption can convert state law claims into federal statutory claim in order to serve as a basis for federal question jurisdiction. In this case, the FAA did not completely preempt state law and thus could not form an independent basis for jurisdiction. The Jackson Court concluded that Jackson therefore did not have “an objectively reasonable basis for removal” and ordered Jackson to pay Sleek’s costs, including attorney’s fee, incurred in connection the removal proceedings.

This post written by Leonor Lagomasino.

See our disclaimer.