The selection of an arbitration panel can often lead to disputes between the parties regarding things like whether a particular candidate is qualified, whether a challenge to an arbitrator’s qualifications can be addressed pre-award and whether a party that names an unqualified arbitrator should lose the opportunity to name a replacement. In Public Risk Innovations v. Amtrust … [Read more...] about Disputes Over Arbitrator Qualifications: The Northern District of California Offers Some Guidance
Umpire selection is one of the most important aspects of a reinsurance (or any other) arbitration because it can have a significant impact on the outcome of your case. Traditionally, parties have utilized the “strike and flip” method of umpire selection where the parties nominate a specified number of candidates, strike all but one of the other side’s candidates and then select … [Read more...] about Strike and Rank – An Alternative to the Strike and Flip Umpire Selection Process
Perhaps Snoop Dogg should stick to gin n’ juice, as the rapper’s foray into promoting cognac and brandy products caused him to become the subject of a decade-long arbitral dispute, which was finally resolved last month. On January 25, 2021, a New York district court judge affirmed a nearly $2 million arbitration award against French cognac distiller Cognac Ferrand SAS … [Read more...] about Mind On His Money and His Money On His Mind: New York District Court Judge Affirms Arbitral Award Arising Out of Dispute Over Royalties Owed to Rapper Snoop Dogg
In almost 40 years of dealing with CERCLA liability claims, we have learned a thing or two. In November of last year, A.M. Best opined that environmental exposures were “97% funded” at $41 billion in reserves. This is good news compared to 2003, when A.M. Best viewed environmental losses as underfunded by 45% based on a projected ultimate loss of $56 billion. But then, as now, … [Read more...] about Cue the Mediator: Hiring a Mediator to Save Costs in Superfund Cases
In the Spring 2016 issue of AIRROC Matters, we featured Part 1 of a multipart arbitration series by Michael Goldstein and Dan Endick titled, “When Courts Peek Under the Arbitral Veil: The Role of the Courts in Managing Your Reinsurance Arbitration.” Part 2 was “Lifting the Veil on Arbitration Proceedings: Who’s Your Counsel – Disqualification of Counsel by Courts” and it … [Read more...] about Lifting the Veil on Arbitration Proceedings: Who’s Your Arbitrator: Arbitrator Disqualification by the Courts
In the Spring 2016 issue of AIRROC Matters, we featured Part 1 of a multipart arbitration series by Michael Goldstein and Dan Endick titled, “When Courts Peek Under the Arbitral Veil: the Role of the Courts in Managing Your Reinsurance Arbitration”. The following article is Part 2, “Who’s Your Counsel.” The final article in the series – Part 3 – will appear in a subsequent … [Read more...] about Lifting the Veil on Arbitration Proceedings: Who’s Your Counsel: Disqualification of Counsel by Courts
Arbitration in general is intended as an alternative to litigation in the courts. For good reasons, courts rarely intervene in pending arbitrations and instead require the parties, under most circumstances, to wait for a final award before seeking redress for perceived grievances in the arbitration process. Indeed, the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1, et seq. (“FAA”), … [Read more...] about When Courts Peek Under the Arbitral Veil: The Role of the Courts in Managing Your Reinsurance Arbitration
For centuries the venerable duty of utmost good faith has served as a bedrock principle of the reinsurance industry: a standard that has set reinsurance contractual relationships apart from other commercial transactions governed by “caveat emptor.” However, a number of commentators in the industry have questioned whether the duty of utmost good faith has been in … [Read more...] about Is the Duty of Utmost Good Faith in Runoff?