Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Reinsurance Arbitration Award

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Reinsurance Arbitrations

  • 631 Accesses

Abstract

A reinsurance arbitral tribunal may make a final award on the whole claim, or it may rule partially via an interim award, allowing the final award to be issued at a later stage and either reject or approve the relief sought. The award must also be in a form to allow it to be enforceable. The date of the award is significant for determining when time runs for purposes of enforcement proceedings. Once a valid award has been made, the arbitrators are divested of authority, except in the case of partial or provisional awards, or in the case of remission by the court of the award to the arbitrators. The successful party may bring an action on the award, or enforce it or challenge it. Subject to the unlikely circumstance that both parties agree in writing that an appeal should be brought, leave to appeal will only be given in exceptional circumstances entailed and detected by law. Court can vacate an award if it were procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means, or the arbitrators were corrupt and impartial, or guilty of refusing to postpone the hearing, upon sufficient cause shown or where the arbitrators exceeded their powers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Barlow and Gilbert (2009), p. 24/3.

  2. 2.

    This provision reverses the decision of the House of Lords in Hiscox v Outhwaite (No. 1) [1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 435.

  3. 3.

    Barlow and Gilbert (2009), pp. 26–25.

  4. 4.

    Lincoln National Life Insurance Company v Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada and Others [2004] l Lloyd’s Rep 737 (QB Com Ct).

  5. 5.

    New York Stock Exchange Arbitration between Fahnestock & Co., Inc. v Waltman, 935 F.2d 512, 516 (2d Cir.) cert. denied, 502 U.S. 942 (1991).

  6. 6.

    Mastrobuono v Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc., 115 S. Ct. 1212 (1995). Lee v Chica, 983 F.2d 883 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 287 (1993). Todd Sbipyards Corp. v Cunard Line, 943 F.2d 1056 (9th Cir. 1991); Raytheon Co. v Automated Business Sys., 882 F.2d 6 (Ist Cir. 1989); Bonar v Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 835 F.2d 1378 (llth Cir. 1988).

  7. 7.

    New York Stock Exchange Arbitration Between Fahnestock & Co. v Waltman, 935 F.2d at 518 (2d Cir.); Ostrager and Vyskocil (1996), pp. 14-41, 14-42.

  8. 8.

    Azov Shipping Co. v. Balde Shipping Co. (No. 1) [1999] l Lloyd’s Rep 68 (QB Com Ct).

  9. 9.

    Zermalt Holdings SA v. Nu-Life Upholstery Repairs Ltd [1985] 2 EGLR 14 (QB Com Ct).

  10. 10.

    Hall Street Associates L.L.C. v Mattel Inc. 128 S.Ct. 1396 (2008).

  11. 11.

    Hall Street Associates L.L.C. v Mattel Inc. 128 S.Ct. 1396 (2008).

  12. 12.

    Hall Street Associates L.L.C. v Mattel Inc. 128 S.Ct. 1396 (2008). Comedy Club, Inc. v Improv. West. Assoc., 553 F.3d 1277, 1290 (9th Cir. 2009); Coffee Beanery Ltd. v WW L.L.C., 300 Fed. Appx. 415, 418–419 (6th Cir. 2008). Idea Nuova Inc. v GM Licensing Group, Inc. No 08-civ.-8595 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 19, 2009). Global Reinsurance Corp. of America v Argonaut Ins. Co., 2009 WL 928014 (S.D.N.Y., Mar. 3, 2009); Kanefsky and Diubaldo (2009), p. 8.

  13. 13.

    Hall Street Associates L.L.C. v Mattel Inc. 128 S.Ct. 1396 (2008). Comedy Club, Inc. v Improv. West. Assoc., 553 F.3d 1277, 1290 (9th Cir. 2009). Coffee Beanery Ltd. v WW L.L.C., 300 Fed. Appx. 415, 418–419 (6th Cir. 2008); Idea Nuova Inc. v GM Licensing Group, Inc. No 08-civ.-8595 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 19, 2009). Global Reinsurance Corp. of America v Argonaut Ins. Co., 2009 WL 928014 (S.D.N.Y., Mar. 3, 2009).; Kanefsky and Diubaldo (2009), p. 8.

  14. 14.

    Improv West Assoc., v Comedy Club Inc., 2009 WL 1648924 (Oct. 5, 2009). Coffee Beanery, Ltd. v WW, LLC, 2009 WL 1342336 (Oct. 5, 2009). Grain v Trinity Health, 2009 WL 1421117 (Oct. 5, 2009); Kanefsky and Diubaldo (2009), p. 8.

  15. 15.

    Kanefsky and Diubaldo (2009), p. 8.

  16. 16.

    The Nema [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 239.

  17. 17.

    The Antaios [1984] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 235.

  18. 18.

    The Nema [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 239.

  19. 19.

    The Antaios [1984] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 235.

  20. 20.

    CMA CGM SA v Beteiligangs-Kommanditgeselhchafi MS “Northern Pioneer” Schiffahrtgesellschaft GmbH & Co. [2003] l Lloyd’s Rep 212 (CA).

  21. 21.

    The Nema [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 239.

  22. 22.

    Barlow and Gilbert (2009), pp. 26-30, 26-32.

  23. 23.

    Henry Boot Construction (UK) Limited v Malmaison Hotel (Manchester) Limited [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 625 (CA).

  24. 24.

    Barlow and Gilbert (2009), pp. 26-30–26-33.

  25. 25.

    Hassneh Insurance Company of Israel v Mew [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 243 (QB Com Ct).

  26. 26.

    Hassneh Insurance Company of Israel v Mew [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 243 (QB Com Ct).

  27. 27.

    Insurance Company’s Lloyd’s Syndicate [1995] l Lloyd’s Rep 272 (QB Com Ct).

  28. 28.

    Hassneh Insurance Company of Israel v Mew [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 243 (QB Com Ct).

  29. 29.

    Ali Shipping Corporation v. Shipyard Trogir [1998] l Lloyd’s Rep 643 (CA).

  30. 30.

    Associated Electronic & Gas Insurance Services Limited v European Reinsurance Company of Zürich [2003] UKPC 11.

  31. 31.

    Barlow and Gilbert (2009), pp. 26-33–26-35.

  32. 32.

    Michigan Mutual Insurance Co. and Others v Unigard Security Insurance Co., 44 F.3d 826 (9th Cir. 1995).

  33. 33.

    Michigan Mutual Insurance Co. and Others v Unigard Security Insurance Co., 44 F.3d 826 (9th Cir. 1995).

  34. 34.

    Michigan Mutual Insurance Co. and Others v Unigard Security Insurance Co., 44 F.3d 826 (9th Cir. 1995).

  35. 35.

    Michigan Mutual Insurance Co. and Others v Unigard Security Insurance Co., 44 F.3d 826 (9th Cir. 1995).

  36. 36.

    Michigan Mutual Insurance Co. and Others v Unigard Security Insurance Co., 44 F.3d 826 (9th Cir. 1995).

  37. 37.

    Kline (1995), p. 417.

  38. 38.

    Michigan Mutual Insurance Co. and Others v Unigard Security Insurance Co., 44 F.3d 826 (9th Cir. 1995).

  39. 39.

    Kline (1995), p. 417.

  40. 40.

    Kline (1995), p. 418.

  41. 41.

    Barlow and Gilbert (2009), p. 50-31.

  42. 42.

    9 U.S.C. §10.

  43. 43.

    Hull Street Associates L.l.C. v Mattel Inc.552. U.S. (2008).

  44. 44.

    Barlow and Gilbert (2009), pp. 50-40–50-44.

  45. 45.

    United Paperworkers Int’l Union v Misco Inc., 484 U.S. 29 (1987) (contrary to public policy); Hummer (1996), p. 236.

  46. 46.

    United Paperworkers Int’l Union v Misco Inc., 484 U.S. 29 (1987) at 38; Hummer (1996), p. 236.

  47. 47.

    Merit Insurance Co. v Leatherby Insurance Co. 714 F.2d 673, 681 (7th Cir. 1983), cert. denied; Hummer (1996), p. 236.

  48. 48.

    International Surplus Lines Insurance Co. v People’s Insurance Co. of China, No. 94 C 2838, 1994 WL 502015 at *2–4 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 12, 1994); Hummer (1996), p. 236.

  49. 49.

    Hummer (1996), p. 236.

  50. 50.

    Employers Reins. Corp. v Admiral Ins. Co., No. CIV. A. 90-3147, 1990 WL 169756 (D. N.J. Oct. 30, 1990); Hummer (1996), p. 236.

  51. 51.

    La Reunion Francaise v Martin, No. 93 CIV. 7165 (MBM), 1995 WL 338291 (S.D. N.Y. May 31, 1995) (rejecting claim that arbitrator modified rather than clarified award on remand from district court); Northwestern Nat’l Ins. Co. v Allstate Ins. Co., 832 F.Supp. 1280 (E.D. Wis. 1993) (rejecting claim that a neutral arbitrator had undisclosed “reputational” interest in outcome because he had established reinsurance program similar to one at issue for his former employer); Hummer (1996), p. 236.

  52. 52.

    Executive Life Insurance Co. v Alexander Insurance Ltd. 999 F.2d 318, 319 (8th Cir. 1993); Hummer (1996), p. 236.

  53. 53.

    Hummer (1996), p. 236.

  54. 54.

    9 U.S.C. § 10(a) (1990); Ostrager and Vyskocil (1996) §§ 14.05, 14-44, 14-45.

  55. 55.

    Transit Cos. Co. v Trenwick Reins. Co., 659 F. Supp. 1346, 1351 (S.D.N.Y. 1987), affd mem., 841 E2d 1117 (2d Cir. 1988).

  56. 56.

    Hall Street Assocs., LLC v Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576, 583 (2008); Thomas and Lyons (2012), §§ 77.04[13][a], 77-137.

  57. 57.

    Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London v Argonaut Ins. Co., No. 04 C 5852, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87827, at *9 (N.D. 111. Sept. 24, 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted); AT&T Mobility LLC v Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740, 1752 (2011) (“Review under § 10 focuses on misconduct rather than mistake.”); Century Indem. Co. v Fencourt Reinsurance Co., Ltd., 640 F. Supp. 2d 626 (E.D. Pa. 2009) (“Courts do not have the authority to overturn an award even if the panel was mistaken in fact, misinterpreted the contract, or made erroneous legal conclusions.”); Thomas and Lyons (2012), §§ 77.04[13][a], 77-137.

  58. 58.

    Scandinavian Reinsurance Co. Ltd. v St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 668 F.3d n 71 (2d Cir. 2012); Liberty Re (Berm.) Ltd. v DH Blair & Co. v Transamerica Occidental Life Ins. Co., No. 04 Civ. 5044 (NRB), 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9774 (S.D.N.Y. May 23, 2005) (“Arbitration awards are subject to a very limited review in order to avoid undermining the twin goals of arbitration , namely settling disputes efficiently and avoiding long and expensive litigation.”); Transit Cas. Co. v Trenwick Reinsurance Co. Ltd., 659 F. Supp. 1346, 1351 (S.D.N.Y. 1987); Thomas and Lyons (2012), §§ 77.04[13][a], 77-137.

  59. 59.

    Transit Cas. Co. v Trenwick Reins. Co., 659 F. Supp. at 1351.

  60. 60.

    Remmey v PaineWebber, Inc., 32 F.3d 143, 146 (4th Cir. 1994).

  61. 61.

    Transit Casualty Co. v Trenwick Reinsurance Co. 659 F. Supp. at 1346.

  62. 62.

    International Surplus Lines Insurance Co. v People’s Insurance Co. of China, No. 94 C 2838 (N.D. 111. Sept. 12, 1994).

  63. 63.

    Yasuda Fire & Marine Ins. Co. of Europe, Ltd. v Continental Cas. Co., 890 F. Supp. 578 (1993).

  64. 64.

    Yasuda Fire & Marine Ins. Co. of Europe, Ltd. v Continental Cas. Co., 890 F. Supp. 578 (1993).

  65. 65.

    Ostrager and Vyskocil (1996), pp. 14-46, 14-50.

  66. 66.

    Thomas and Lyons (2012), §§ 77.04[13][b]–77.04[14], 77-139, 77-166.

  67. 67.

    Hall Street Assocs., LLC v Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576, 585 (2008).

  68. 68.

    Comedy Club, Inc. v Improv W. Assocs., 553 F.3d 1277, 1290 (9th Cir. 2009); Coffee Beanery, Ltd. v WW, LLC, 300 F. App’x 415, 418–419 (6th Cir. 2008); Schwartz v Merrill Lynch & Co., 665 F.3d 444, 451–452 (2d Cir. 2011); T.Co Metals LLC v Dempsey Pipe & Supply, Inc., 592 F.3d 329, 339 (2d Cir. 2010); Am. Centennial Ins. Co. v Global Int’l Reinsurance Co., No. 12 Civ. 1400 (PKC), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94754 (S.D.N.Y. July 9, 2012) (“As a ‘judicial gloss’ on section 10(a), the Second Circuit recognizes two additional bases for vacatur : where the award is in ‘manifest disregard’ of the law or of the terms of the parties’ agreement.”); Century Indem. Co. v Fencourt Reinsurance Co., Ltd., 640 F. Supp. 2d 626, 628 (E.D. Pa. 2009) (“The court may only revise the arbitration award if it was completely irrational, [or] if the panel’s award does not draw its essence from the agreement and the arbitrator is dispensing his own brand of industrial justice, or if there is a manifest disregard of the agreement.”) (internal quotation marks omitted); Wachovia Sec, LLC v Brand, No. 10-2111, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 3047, at *20 (4th Cir. Feb. 16, 2012) (concluding that manifest disregard survived Hall Street as an independent ground for vacating an arbitration award ); Thomas and Lyons (2012), §§ 77.04[13][b]–77.04[14], 77-139, 77-166.

  69. 69.

    British Ins. Co. of Cayman v Water St. Ins. Co. Ltd., 93 F. Supp. 2d 506, 515 (S.D.N.Y. 2000); Saipem Am., Inc. v Wellington Underwriting Agencies Ltd., No. H-07-3080, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108267, at *31 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 18, 2008) (“To prove that an arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law, a plaintiff must show 1) the arbitrator made an obvious error, one that was capable of being readily and instantly perceived by the average person qualified to serve as an arbitrator and 2) the award resulted in significant injustice.. . . The term “disregard” implies the arbitrator appreciates the existence of a clearly governing principle but decides to ignore or pay no attention to it. The governing law must be well-defined, explicit and clearly applicable.”); Thomas and Lyons (2012), §§ 77.04[13][b]–77.04[14], 77-139, 77-166.

  70. 70.

    General Sec. Nat’l Ins. Co. v Aequicap Program Administrators, 785 F. Supp. 2d 411, 417 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (awards can be vacated on the grounds of manifest disregard of the law only in “those exceedingly rare instances where some egregious impropriety on the part of the arbitrators is apparent”) [quoting Duferco Int’l Steel Trading v T. Klaveness Shipping A/S, 333 F.3d 383, 389 (2d Cir. 2003)]; New York Newspaper Printing Pressman’s Union No. 2 v The New York Times Co., No. 91 Civ. 4677, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7624 (S.D.N.Y. May 22, 1992) (courts will only vacate awards “in the very rare instances when an arbitrator’s procedural aberrations rise to the level of affirmative misconduct” causing prejudice) [quoting United Paperworkers Int’l Union v. Misco, 484 U.S. 29, 40 (1987)]; Thomas and Lyons (2012), §§ 77.04[13][b]–77.04[14], 77-139, 77-166.

  71. 71.

    Hall Street Assocs., LLC v Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576, 585 (2008); Frazier v CitiFinancial Corp., 604 F.3d 1313, 1324 (11th Cir. 2010) [concluding that judicially created grounds for vacating an arbitration award did not survive Hall Street Assocs., LLC v Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576, 585 (2008)]; Affymax, Inc. v Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharms., Inc., 660 F.3d 281, 285 (7th Cir. 2011); Air Line Pilots Ass’n, Int’l v Trans States Airlines, LLC, 638 F.3d 572, 578 (8th Cir. 2011); Citigroup Global Mkts., Inc. v Bacon, 562 F.3d 349, 358 (5th Cir. 2009) (“Manifest disregard of the law as an independent, non-statutory ground for setting aside an award must be abandoned and rejected.”); Ramos-Santiago v UPS, 524 F.3d 120, 124 n.3 (1st Cir. 2008) (dicta); Thomas and Lyons (2012), §§ 77.04[13][b]–77.04[14], 77-139, 77-166.

  72. 72.

    Regnery Publ’g, Inc. v Miniter, 368 F. App’x 148, 149 (D.C. Cir. 2010); Kashner Davidson Sec. Corp. v Mscisz, 601 F.3d 19, 22 (1st Cir. 2010); Paul Green Sen. of Rock Music Franchising, LLC v Smith, 389 F. App’x 172, 176-777 (3d Cir. 2010); Abbott v Law Office of Patrick J. Mulligan, No. 10-4113, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 19468, at *19 (10th Cir. Sept. 21, 2011); Thomas and Lyons (2012), §§ 77.04[13][b]–77.04[14], 77-139, 77-166.

  73. 73.

    Bonar v Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 835 F.2d 1378 (11th Cir. 1988) (vacating award where an expert witness lied about all of his credentials—where he went to school, what degrees he had, and what jobs he had held); Thomas and Lyons (2012), Chapters 71–79 §§ 71.01–79.06, §§ 77.04[13][b]–77.04[14], 77-139, 77-166).

  74. 74.

    Virginia Sur. Co., Inc. v Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, No. 1-10-1753, 2011 111. App. Unpub. LEXIS 647 (111. App. Ct. Apr. 20, 2011) (vacating arbitration award , concluding that reinsurer committed fraud by seeking arbitration expenses relating to treaty as to which the parties agreed to bear their own costs, where the parties submitted expenses to the panel in camera); Thomas and Lyons (2012), §§ 77.04[13][b]–77.04[14], 77-139, 77-166.

  75. 75.

    American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO v United States Postal Serv., 52 F.3d 359, 362 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (“undue means” refers to “equivalent in gravity to corruption or fraud, such as physical threat to an arbitrator”); National Cas. Co. v First State Ins. Group, 430 F.3d 492, 499 (1st Cir. 2005) (“The best reading of the term ‘undue means’ under the maxim noscitur a sociis is that it describes underhanded or conniving ways of procuring an award that are similar to corruption or fraud, but do not precisely constitute either.”); S&B Eng’rs & Constructors, LTD v Alstom Power, Inc., No. 3:04-CV-0150-L, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73749, at *8 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 2, 2006) (“with respect to ‘undue means,’ this term connotes behavior that is immoral if not illegal, or otherwise in bad faith.”) [quoting In re Arbitration Between Trans. Chem. Ltd. and China Nat’l Mach. Im. and Exp. Corp., 978 F. Supp. 266, 304 (S.D.Tex. 1997)]; Thomas and Lyons (2012), §§ §§ 77.04[13][b]–77.04[14], 77-139, 77-166.

  76. 76.

    Biotronik Mess-und Therapiegeraete GmbH & Co. v Medford Medical Instrument Co., 415 F. Supp. 133, 137 (D.N.J. 1976); Virginia Sur. Co., Inc. v Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, No. 1-10-1753, 2011 111. App. Unpub. LEXIS 647 (111. App. Ct. Apr. 20, 2011) (affirming order vacating arbitration award in part, concluding that cedent could not have discovered reinsurer’s fraud in seeking expenses which the reinsured had agreed to bear because fees were submitted to the panel in camera on grounds of privilege); Thomas and Lyons (2012), §§ 77.04[13][b]–77.04[14], 77-139, 77-166.

  77. 77.

    Scandinavian Reinsurance Co. Ltd. v St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 668 F.3d 60, 64 (2d Cir. 2012); Thomas and Lyons (2012), §§ 77.04[13][b]–77.04[14], 77-139, 77-166.

  78. 78.

    Thomas and Lyons (2012), §§ 77.04[13][b]–77.04[14], 77-139, 77-166.

  79. 79.

    Scandinavian Reinsurance Co. Ltd. v St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 668 F.3d 60, 64 (2d Cir. 2012); Thomas and Lyons (2012), §§ 77.04[13][b]–77.04[14], 77-139, 77-166.

  80. 80.

    Transit Cas. Co. v Trenwick Reinsurance Co. Ltd., 659 F. Supp. 1346 (S.D.N.Y. 1987) (umpire not evidently partial where he failed to disclose that he owned stock in corporation that had an equity interest in one party, concluding that the financial interest was “trivial and carries with it no reasonable suggestion that [the umpire] would be biased against Transit”); Scandinavian Reinsurance Co. Ltd. v St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 668 F.3d 60, 64 (2d Cir. 2012); Thomas and Lyons (2012), §§ 77.04[13][b]–77.04[14], 77-139, 77-166.

  81. 81.

    Thomas and Lyons (2012), Chapters 71–79 §§ 71.01–79.06, §§ 77.04[13][b]–77.04[14], 77-139, 77-166.

  82. 82.

    U.S. Care, Inc. v Pioneer Life Ins. Co. of 111., 244 F. Supp. 2d 1057, 1063 (CD. Cal. 2002) (party-appointed arbitrator did not display evident partiality by failing to disclose that his company had 41-year old reinsurance contract with corporate affiliate of party that appointed him, where he had no personal involvement with the contract; the court concluded that he was not “disinterested”: “The alleged relationship … is simply too tenuous to support a ‘reasonable impression of partiality.. . . [The arbitrator’s] affiliation with a company doing business with a sister company to a party to the arbitration does not establish—or create an inference—that [he] was ‘clearly not disinterested.’”); Thomas and Lyons (2012), §§ 77.04[13][b]–77.04[14], 77-139, 77-166.

  83. 83.

    Morelite Constr. Corp. v New York City Dist. Council Carpenters Benefit Funds, 748 F.2d 79, 83 (2d Cir. 1984) (“[T]o disqualify any arbitrator who had professional dealings with one of the parties (to say nothing of a social acquaintanceship) would make it impossible, in some circumstances, to find a qualified arbitrator at all.”); Hunt v. Mobil Oil Corp., 654 F. Supp. 1487, 1502 (S.D.N.Y. 1987); Thomas and Lyons (2012), §§ 77.04[13][b]–77.04[14], 77-139, 77-166.

  84. 84.

    Arrowood Indem. Co. v Trustmark Ins. Co., No. 3:03-CV-1000 (PCD), 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109782 (D. Conn. Feb. 2, 2010) (rejecting claim that an umpire was partial where, following his appointment, the cedent selected the arbitrator six times as its party-appointed arbitrator, and that the cedent’s appointments represented 12–17.5 % of the arbitrator’s income over the preceding three years); Thomas and Lyons (2012), §§ 77.04[13][b]-77.04[14], 77-139, 77-166.

  85. 85.

    Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v First State Ins. Co., 213 F. Supp. 2d 10 (D. Mass. 2002) (party-appointed arbitrator did not display evident partiality where 18 years earlier she expressed an opinion on an issue in the case, had ex parte communications with one party when such communications were permitted, and the panel denied one party discovery after the panel’s interim award ); Thomas and Lyons (2012), §§ 77.04[13][b]–77.04[14], 77-139, 77-166.

  86. 86.

    LLT Int’l, Inc. v MCI Telecomms. Corp., 18 F. Supp. 2d 349 (S.D.N.Y. 1998); Cook Chocolate Co. v. Salomon, Inc., 748 F. Supp. 122 (S.D.N.Y. 1990) (disagreements between arbitrator and one party’s counsel did not demonstrate bias); Thomas and Lyons (2012), §§ 77.04[13][b]–77.04[14], 77-139, 77-166.

  87. 87.

    Sheet Metals Workers v Jesse Mfg., Inc., 900 F.2d 1392 (9th Cir. 1990) (procedural rulings in one party’s favor were not evidence of bias); Thomas and Lyons (2012), §§ 77.04[13][b]–77.04[14], 77-139, 77-166.

  88. 88.

    Areca, Inc. v Oppenheimer & Co., Inc., 960 F. Supp. 52, 56 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (panel did not display partiality by precluding party’s CFO from testifying where it presented several other witnesses and exhibits, and it “repeatedly failed to articulate what important testimony could be elicited from” the CFO, concluding that “evident partiality may not be shown by alleged procedural or evidentiary errors, by legitimate efforts to move the case along, or by failure to follow the rules of evidence.”); P.T. Reasuransi Umum Indonesia v Evanston Ins. Co., No. 92 Civ. 4623 (MGC), 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19753, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 1992) (refusing to vacate arbitration award , concluding that panel was not partial where it refused reinsurer’s request to postpone hearing made 4 days in advance of the hearing and without justification); Transit Cas. Co. v Trenwick Reinsurance Co., 659 F. Supp. 1346, 1351 (S.D.N.Y. 1987) (denying motion to vacate arbitral award under § 10(c) where panel’s evidentiary rulings, in admitting one document and refusing to admit another document into evidence, did not prejudice the cedent since the cedent addressed issues relating to the excluded letter in its post-hearing brief).

  89. 89.

    Petition of Fertilizantes Fosfatados Mexicanos, S.A., 751 F. Supp. 467, 468 (S.D.N.Y. 1990) (confirming award , concluding that arbitrators were not biased where dissenting arbitrator claimed that he was excluded from panel’s deliberations; the court concluded that the dissenter’s claims were unsubstantiated and that he was simply “frustrat[ed] in failing to convince the majority of his position”).

  90. 90.

    Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London v Argonaut Ins. Co., 264 F. Supp. 2d 926 (N.D. Cal. 2003) (umpire was not evidently partial to cedent by ordering interim payment to cedent, concluding that the reinsurer failed to adduce specific facts indicating improper motives).

  91. 91.

    Thomas and Lyons (2012), §§ 77.04[13][b]–77.04[14], 77-139, 77-166.

  92. 92.

    Thomas and Lyons (2012), §§ 77.04[13][b]–77.04[14], 77-139, 77-166.

  93. 93.

    Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. v Odyssey Am. Reinsurance Corp., No. 05 Civ. 7539 (DAB), 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108318 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 18, 2009); Thomas and Lyons (2012), §§ 77.04[13][b]–77.04[14], 77-139, 77-166.

  94. 94.

    US—9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(4).

  95. 95.

    Thomas and Lyons (2012), §§ 77.04[13][b]–77.04[14], 77-139, 77-166.

  96. 96.

    Hoeft v MVL Group, Inc., 343 F.3d 57, 68 (2d Cir. 2003) (“cases are legion in which courts have refused to permit parties to depose arbitrators. . . regarding the thought processes underlying their decisions.”); Thomas and Lyons (2012), §§ 77.04[13][b]–77.04[14], 77-139, 77-169.

  97. 97.

    Union America Ins. Co. v Allstate Ins. Co., 302 F. Supp. 2d 865, 868 (N.D. Π1. 2004) (enjoining retrocedent from re-arbitrating issues decided in earlier arbitration , concluding that “[forcing a party to relitigate a case which has already been decided once can constitute irreparable injury justifying an injunction”); Stulberg v Intermedics Orthopedics, 997 F. Supp. 1060, 1068 (N.D. 111. 1998) (“the court finds that the previously issued unconfirmed arbitration award has preclusive effect on the subsequent proceedings before this court.”); Thomas and Lyons (2012), §§ 77.04[13][b]–77.04[14], 77-139, 77-169.

  98. 98.

    Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc. v 1109580 Ontario, Inc., 409 F.3d 87, 91 (2d Cir. 2005). The issue-preclusive effect of a prior arbitration depends on whether the party against whom the doctrine is asserted was a party to the prior arbitration, or in privity with such a party; Thomas and Lyons (2012), §§ 77.04[13][b]–77.04[14], 77-139, 77-169.

  99. 99.

    Brownco Int’l, Inc. v Ogden Steel Co., 585 F. Supp. 1432, 1435 (S.D.N.Y. 1983) (“Where a previous arbitration award is ambiguous in respect of what issues were decided, it necessarily has limited value in subsequent litigation.”); Thomas and Lyons (2012), §§ 77.04[13][b]–77.04[14], 77-139, 77-169.

  100. 100.

    Hotel Ass’n v Hotel & Restaurant Employees Union, Local 25,963 F.2d 388 (D.C. Cir. 1992); Weaver v Florida Power & Light Co., 172 F.3d 771, 774 (11th Cir. 1999); Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mass., Inc. v BCS Ins. Co., Nos. 11-2343, 11-2757, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 25304, at *9 (7th Cir. Dec. 16, 2011); Thomas and Lyons (2012), §§ 77.04[13][b]–77.04[14], 77-139, 77-169.

  101. 101.

    Sphere Drake Ins. Ltd. v The Lincoln Nat’l Life Ins. Co., No. 05 C 6411, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70533, at *14 (N.D. 111. Sep. 13, 2006) (“Deciding the issue of the collateral estoppel effect of the English Judgment was within the scope of the parties’ arbitration agreement .”); Thomas and Lyons (2012), §§ 77.04[13][b]–77.04[14], 77-139, 77-169.

  102. 102.

    American Ins. Co. v Messinger, 371 N.E.2d 798, 801 (N.Y. App. Div. 1977) (“Fundamental to our consideration of the present appeal is recognition that in general the doctrines of claim preclusion” (fel.8A-12/2012 Pub.60087); Thomas and Lyons (2012), §§ 77.04[13][b]–77.04[14], 77-139, 77-169.

  103. 103.

    Thomas and Lyons (2012), §§ 77.04[13][b]–77.04[14], 77-139, 77-169.

  104. 104.

    Dean Witter Reynolds v Byrd, 470 U.S. 213 (1985). Clark v Bear Stearns & Co., 966 F.2d 1318 (9th Cir. 1992). Benjamin v Traffic Executive Ass’n Mastern Rattroads, 869 E2d 107 (2d Cir. 1989). American Ins. Co. v Messinger, 43 N.Y.2d 184 (1977).

  105. 105.

    Schweitzer Aircraft Corp. v Local 1752, Int’l Union, United Auto. Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of Amer., 29 F.3d 83, 87 (2d Cir. 1994). Universal Am. Bärge Corp. v J-Chem., Inc., 946E2 n560.

  106. 106.

    American Renaissance Lines v Saxis S.S., Co., 502 E2d at 678 (2d Cir. 1974).

  107. 107.

    Ufbeil Construction Co. v New Windsor, 478 F. Supp. 766 (S.D.N.Y. 1979), aff’d, 636 E2d 1204 (2d Cir. 1980).

  108. 108.

    Clark v Bear Stearns & Co., 966 F.2d 1318 (9th Cir. 1992). O’Neill v Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith, 654 F. Supp. 347 (N.D. 111. 1987).

  109. 109.

    Wurttembergishe Fire Insurance Co. v Republic Insurance Co., No. 86 Civ. 2696 (S.D.N.Y Oct. 28, 1987).

  110. 110.

    Wurttembergishe Fire Insurance Co. v Republic Insurance Co., No. 86 Civ. 2696 (S.D.N.Y Oct. 28, 1987).

  111. 111.

    Pompano Windy City Partners, Ltd. v Bear Stearns & Co., Nos. 87 Civ. 7560, 88 Civ. 7159 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 17, 1993).

  112. 112.

    Wellons, Inc. v T.E. Ibberson Co., 869 E2d 1166 (8th Cir. 1989).

  113. 113.

    869 F.2d at ll69.

  114. 114.

    869 F.2d at ll69.

  115. 115.

    Kelly v Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 985 F.2d 1067, 1069 (llth Cir.), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 600 (1993).

  116. 116.

    Chicago Typographical Union No. 16 v Chicago Sun-Times, Inc., 860 E2d 1420, 1424 (7th Cir. 1988). Ostrager and Vyskocil (1996) §§ 14-06, 14-46, 14-51–14-59.

  117. 117.

    Kodwo (1992), p. 29. This has been so, even though there may have been theoretical problems involving the application of equity clauses in various commercial arbitration agreements .

  118. 118.

    Société Intrafor Coloret Subtec Middle East Co. M. M. Gagnant Guilbert et al., Revue de l’Arbitrage (1985), No. 2, 300.

  119. 119.

    Kodwo (1992), p. 29.

  120. 120.

    As he then was.

  121. 121.

    Orion Compania Espanola de Seguros v. Belfort Maatschappij Voor Algemene Verzekgringen, [1962] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 257.

  122. 122.

    Kodwo (1992), p. 30.

  123. 123.

    Rogers (1989), p. 156.

  124. 124.

    Orion Compania Espanola de Seguros v. Belfort Maatschappij Voor Algemene Verzekgringen, [1962] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 257.

  125. 125.

    Now repealed.

  126. 126.

    Eagle Star Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Yuval Insurance Co. Ltd., [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 357, C.A.

  127. 127.

    Home and Overseas Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mentor Insurance Co. (U.K.) Ltd. (In Liquidation), [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 473. [1990] 1 W.L.R. 153, C.A.

  128. 128.

    Kodwo (1992), p. 30.

  129. 129.

    Eagle Star Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Yuval Insurance Co. Ltd., [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 357, C.A.

  130. 130.

    Kodwo (1992), p. 31.

  131. 131.

    Eagle Star Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Yuval Insurance Co. Ltd., [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 357, C.A.

  132. 132.

    As he then was.

  133. 133.

    Bearing in mind that the latter observation was made just before the enactment of the Arbitration Act 1979, its juridical and practical significance could hardly be underestimated.

  134. 134.

    Orion Compania Espanola de Seguros v. Belfort Maatschappij Voor Algemene Verzekgringen, [1962] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 257.

  135. 135.

    Eagle Star Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Yuval Insurance Co. Ltd., [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 357, C.A.

  136. 136.

    Kodwo (1992), p. 32.

  137. 137.

    Eagle Star Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Yuval Insurance Co. Ltd., [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 357, C.A.

  138. 138.

    Home and Overseas Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mentor Insurance Co. (U.K.) Ltd. (In Liquidation), [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 473. [1990] 1 W.L.R. 153, C.A.

  139. 139.

    Kodwo (1992), pp. 32–33.

  140. 140.

    Home and Overseas Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mentor Insurance Co. (U.K.) Ltd. (In Liquidation), [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. at p. 487. [1990] 1 W.L.R. at p. 164.

  141. 141.

    Eagle Star Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Yuval Insurance Co. Ltd., [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 357, C.A.

  142. 142.

    Kodwo (1992), p. 34.

  143. 143.

    Home and Overseas Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mentor Insurance Co. (U.K.) Ltd. (In Liquidation), [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 473; [1990] 1 W.L.R. 153, C.A.

  144. 144.

    Eagle Star Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Yuval Insurance Co. Ltd., [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 357; Kodwo (1992), p. 35.

  145. 145.

    Eagle Star Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Yuval Insurance Co. Ltd., [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 357, C.A.

  146. 146.

    Home and Overseas Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mentor Insurance Co. (U.K.) Ltd. (In Liquidation), [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 473. [1990] 1 W.L.R. 153, C.A.

  147. 147.

    Home and Overseas Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mentor Insurance Co. (U.K.) Ltd. (In Liquidation), [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 473. [1990] 1 W.L.R. 153, C.A.

  148. 148.

    Home and Overseas Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mentor Insurance Co. (U.K.) Ltd. (In Liquidation), [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 473.[1990] 1 W.L.R. 153, C.A.

  149. 149.

    Eagle Star Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Yuval Insurance Co. Ltd., [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 357, C.A.

  150. 150.

    Home and Overseas Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mentor Insurance Co. (U.K.) Ltd. (In Liquidation), [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 473. [1990] 1 W.L.R. 153, C.A.

  151. 151.

    Eagle Star Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Yuval Insurance Co. Ltd., [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 357, C.A.

  152. 152.

    Home and Overseas Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mentor Insurance Co. (U.K.) Ltd. (In Liquidation), [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 473. [1990] 1 W.L.R. 153, C.A.

  153. 153.

    Eagle Star Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Yuval Insurance Co. Ltd., [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 357, C.A.

  154. 154.

    Home and Overseas Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mentor Insurance Co. (U.K.) Ltd. (In Liquidation), [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 473. [1990] 1 W.L.R. 153, C.A.

  155. 155.

    Eagle Star Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Yuval Insurance Co. Ltd., [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 357, C.A.

  156. 156.

    Kodwo (1992), p. 35.

  157. 157.

    Eagle Star Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Yuval Insurance Co. Ltd., [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 357, C.A.

  158. 158.

    Home and Overseas Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mentor Insurance Co. (U.K.) Ltd. (In Liquidation), [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 473. [1990] 1 W.L.R. 153, C.A.

  159. 159.

    Kodwo (1992), p. 37.

  160. 160.

    Kodwo (1992), p. 38.

  161. 161.

    Hartford Fire Ins. v. Lloyd’s Syndicate, No. 3:97CV00009 (AVC), 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10858 (D. Conn. July 2, 1997).

  162. 162.

    Hartford Fire Ins. v. Lloyd’s Syndicate, No. 3:97CV00009 (AVC), 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10858 (D. Conn. July 2, 1997).

  163. 163.

    Hartford Fire Ins. v. Lloyd’s Syndicate, No. 3:97CV00009 (AVC), 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10858 (D. Conn. July 2, 1997).

  164. 164.

    Hartford Fire Ins. v. Lloyd’s Syndicate, No. 3:97CV00009 (AVC), 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10858 (D. Conn. July 2, 1997).

  165. 165.

    Hartford Fire Ins. v. Lloyd’s Syndicate, Int. I.L.R. 1998, 6(1), N8-10 Page 2.

  166. 166.

    Hummer (1996), pp. 235–236.

  167. 167.

    Hummer (1996), pp. 235–236.

  168. 168.

    Woolhouse (2004), p. 150.

  169. 169.

    Woolhouse (2004), p. 150.

  170. 170.

    Associated Electric and Gas Insurance Services Ltd v European Reinsurance Company of Zurich [2003] UKPC 11.

  171. 171.

    Woolhouse (2004), p. 150.

  172. 172.

    Woolhouse (2004), p. 151.

  173. 173.

    Sacor Maritima SA v Repsol Petroleo SA [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 518 [QBD (Comm)].

  174. 174.

    Sacor Maritima SA v Repsol Petroleo SA [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 518 [QBD (Comm)] at para. 73.

  175. 175.

    Lincoln National Life Insurance Co v Sun Life Assurance Co of Canada [2004] EWHC 343 (Comm).

  176. 176.

    Stargas S.P.A. v. Petredec Ltd (The Sargasso) [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 412.

  177. 177.

    Woolhouse (2004), p. 151.

  178. 178.

    Stargas S.P.A. v. Petredec Ltd (The Sargasso) [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 412.

  179. 179.

    Lincoln National Life Insurance Co v Sun Life Assurance Co of Canada [2004] EWHC 343 (Comm); Woolhouse (2004), p. 152.

  180. 180.

    Lincoln National Life Insurance Co v Sun Life Assurance Co of Canada [2004] EWHC 343 paras. [90]–[91].

  181. 181.

    Lincoln National Life Insurance Co v Sun Life Assurance Co of Canada [2004] EWHC 343 para. [155].

  182. 182.

    Woolhouse (2004), p. 152.

  183. 183.

    Biggin & Co LD v Permanite LD [1951] 2 K.B. 314; General Feeds v Slobodna [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 688; Woolhouse (2004), p. 152.

  184. 184.

    Woolhouse (2004), p. 154.

  185. 185.

    Lincoln National Life Insurance Co v Sun Life Assurance Co of Canada [2004] EWHC 343.

  186. 186.

    Lincoln National Life Insurance Co v Sun Life Assurance Co of Canada [2004] EWHC 343.

  187. 187.

    Woolhouse (2004), p. 154.

  188. 188.

    Mohan and Teck (2005), p. 161.

  189. 189.

    Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada & Ors v The Lincoln National Life Insurance Co [2004] EWCA Civ 1660.

  190. 190.

    Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada & Ors v The Lincoln National Life Insurance Co [2004] EWCA Civ 1660.

  191. 191.

    Mohan and Teck (2005), p. 162.

  192. 192.

    Mohan and Teck (2005), pp. 161–162.

  193. 193.

    Even as between Sun Life/Phoenix and Cigna.

  194. 194.

    Mohan and Teck (2005), p. 163.

  195. 195.

    Mohan and Teck (2005), p. 164.

  196. 196.

    Mohan and Teck (2005), p. 164.

  197. 197.

    Mohan and Teck (2005), p. 165.

  198. 198.

    Abu Dhabi Gas Liquefaction Co Ltd v Eastern Bechtel Corp. [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 42; Mohan and Teck (2005), p. 166.

  199. 199.

    Mohan and Teck (2005), p. 166.

  200. 200.

    Mohan and Teck (2005), p. 167.

  201. 201.

    Woolhouse (2004), p. 156.

  202. 202.

    Michigan Mutual Insurance Co. and Others v Unigard Security Insurance Co., 44 F.3d 826 (9th Cir. 1995).

References

  • Barlow L, Gilbert LLP (2009) Reinsurance practice and the law. Informa, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Hummer PM (1996) Reinsurance arbitrations from start to Finish: a practitioner’s guide. Def Couns J 63:228

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanefsky EP, Diubaldo RW (2009) Notable 2009 U.S. reinsurance arbitration decisions. Insur Reinsur Rev. www.edwardswildman.com/insights/PublicationDetail.aspx?publication=1914

  • Kline CG (1995) Recent US direct insurance and reinsurance decisions: their impact on Europe. Int ILR 3(12):414–418

    Google Scholar 

  • Kodwo BJ (1992) Commercial arbitrators authorised not to apply strict rules of law and judicial review. J Bus Law 4:26–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Mohan RC, Teck LW (2005) Some contractual approaches to the problem of inconsistent awards in multi-party, multi-contract arbitration proceedings. Asian Int Arbitration J 1(2):161–162

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrager BR, Vyskocil MC (1996) Modern reinsurance law and practice. Glasser Legal Works, Little Falls

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers AJ (1989) Contemporary problems in international commercial arbitration. Int Bus Lawyer 17:156

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas JE, Lyons S (eds) (2012) New Appleman on insurance law – library edition, vol 7, Property insurance (chapters 71–79 §§ 71.01–79.06). Lexis Nexis, Los Angeles

    Google Scholar 

  • Woolhouse SP (2004) The effect of an arbitration award on subsequent arbitration between different parties – an English law perspective. Int ALR 7(5):150–156

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Athens, Greece

    Kyriaki Noussia

Authors
  1. Kyriaki Noussia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Noussia, K. (2013). The Reinsurance Arbitration Award. In: Reinsurance Arbitrations. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-45146-1_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation