Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Reinsurance Arbitration Proceedings

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Reinsurance Arbitrations

  • 634 Accesses

Abstract

Reinsurance arbitration proceedings are commonly conducted in a way similar to a hearing before the state courts. However, differentiating factors are inter alia the constitution of the arbitral panel by knowledgeable industry experts, as well as the speed, confidentiality and no precedential character of the arbitral proceedings. Arbitrators are subject to a general to act fairly and impartially as between the parties. The court has a subsidiary power to order compliance with a peremptory order made by a tribunal. The party aggrieved may seek from a court an order compelling arbitration. Arbitration agreements will be consolidated if parties or tribunals decide so. Reinsurance arbitral agreements are fully enforced by the courts.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
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 Lyde and Gilbert LLP (2009), p. 26-12.

  2. 2.

    Barlow Lyde and Gilbert LLP (2009), pp. 26-12–26-14.

  3. 3.

    Barlow Lyde and Gilbert LLP (2009), pp. 26-6, 26-12–26-14.

  4. 4.

    Barlow Lyde and Gilbert LLP (2009), pp. 26-6, 26-12–26-14.

  5. 5.

    Barlow Lyde and Gilbert LLP (2009), pp. 26-7, 26-15; A detailed discussion of the procedural rules would, however, go beyond the scope of this monograph.

  6. 6.

    Barlow Lyde and Gilbert LLP (2009), pp. 26.7.3, 26-16.

  7. 7.

    Hiscox Underwriting Ltd v Dickson Manchester & Co Ltd [2004] EWHC 479 (Comm).

  8. 8.

    Scott v Avery (1856) 5 HL Gas 811.

  9. 9.

    Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH v Societe Cargill France [1998] l Lloyd’s Rep 379 (CA).

  10. 10.

    Hume v AA Mutual International Insurance Company Ltd [1996] LRLR 19 (QB Com Ct).

  11. 11.

    Barlow Lyde and Gilbert LLP (2009), pp. 26-8, 26-17–26-22.

  12. 12.

    Cases resolving the apparent conflict between arbitration clauses and service of suit clauses in favor of arbitration such as e.g. Hart v Orion Ins. Co., 453 F.2d 1358, 1361 (10th Cir. 1971); Maloney et al. (2000), p. 480.

  13. 13.

    Transit Cas. Co. v Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, 963 S.W.2d 392 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998).

  14. 14.

    The applicability of the contra proferentem doctrine to reinsurance contracts is subject to debate among U.S. courts.; Maloney et al. (2000), p. 481.

  15. 15.

    Transit Cas. Co. v Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, 963 S.W.2d 392 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998); The applicability of the contra proferentem doctrine to reinsurance contracts is subject to debate among U.S. courts.; Maloney et al. (2000), p. 481.

  16. 16.

    Maloney et al. (2000), p. 481.

  17. 17.

    American Centennial Ins. Co. v Seguros La Republica, S.A., 1992 WL 162770 (S.D.N.Y. 1992).

  18. 18.

    215 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/123 (West 1997).

  19. 19.

    Continental Cas. Co. v Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, Nos. C-92-4094 and C-98-3145 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 1998), reported in 9 Mealey’s Litig. Rep. Reins. 15, (Dec. 10, 1998).

  20. 20.

    Borden, Inc. v Meiji Milk Prod. Co., 919 F.2d 822, 826 (2d Cir. 1991).

  21. 21.

    Maloney et al. (2000), p. 487.

  22. 22.

    Maloney et al. (2000), p. 487.

  23. 23.

    9 U.S.C. §4.

  24. 24.

    Holmes and Sutin (1996), p. 556.

  25. 25.

    United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, art. II.3.

  26. 26.

    Holmes and Sutin (1996), pp. 557–558.

  27. 27.

    Hamilton Life Ins. Co. of New York v Republic Nat. Life Ins. Co., 291 F. Supp. 225 (S.D.N.Y.1968); Holmes and Sutin (1996), p. 563.

  28. 28.

    Gulf Guar. Life Ins. Co., v Connecticut Gen. Life Ins., 957 F. Supp. 839 (S.D. Miss. 1997); Holmes and Sutin (1996), p. 563.

  29. 29.

    Hammesfahr and Wright (1994), pp. 308–311.

  30. 30.

    Thomas et al. (2011), § 40-27.

  31. 31.

    Hosack and Kline (1998), p. 108.

  32. 32.

    Hosack and Kline (1998), p. 109.

  33. 33.

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

  34. 34.

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

  35. 35.

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

  36. 36.

    Hosack and Kline (1998), p. 109.

  37. 37.

    Arthur Andersen LLP, et al. v. Carlisle, et al., 129 S.Ct. 1896 (2009).

  38. 38.

    Cooke & Partners, Ltd. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, No. 08 Civ. 3435 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2009).

  39. 39.

    Utopia Studios Ltd. v. Earth Tech Inc., No. 08-cv-3515 (E.D.N.Y. April 20, 2009).

  40. 40.

    Kanefsky and Diubaldo (2009), p. 9.

  41. 41.

    Monin and Brady (1996), p. 219; McDonald (2001), p. 332.

  42. 42.

    3 U.S.T. 2517 (entered into for the United States on December 30, 1970) and 9 U.S.C. Section 205.

  43. 43.

    9 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq.

  44. 44.

    Where the subject matter of an action or proceeding pending in a state court relates to an arbitration agreement or award falling under the convention, the defendant or the defendants may, at any time before the trial thereof, remove such action or proceeding to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where the action or proceeding is pending. The procedure for removal of causes otherwise provided by law shall apply, except that the ground for removal provided in this section need not appear on the face of the complaint but may be shown in the petition for removal. For the purposes of Chap. 1 of this title any action or proceeding removed under this section shall be deemed to have been brought in the district court to which it is removed; McDonald (2001), p. 333.

  45. 45.

    It provides, in relevant part that if a suit or proceeding be brought in any of the courts of the United States upon any issue referable to arbitration under an agreement in writing for such arbitration, the court in which such suit is pending, upon being satisfied that the issue involved in such suit or proceeding is referable to arbitration under such an agreement, shall on application of one of the parties stay the trial of the action until such arbitration has been had in accordance with the terms of the agreement, providing the applicant for the stay is not in default in proceeding with such arbitration; McDonald (2001), p. 333.

  46. 46.

    McDonald (2001), p. 334.

  47. 47.

    McDonald (2001), p. 334.

  48. 48.

    McDonald (2001), p. 335.

  49. 49.

    Century Indem. Co v Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, No 11 Civ. 1040 (RJS), 2012 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 4237, at *11–12 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 10, 2012); Thomas and Lyons (2012), pp. 77–129.

  50. 50.

    North Carolina League of Municipalities v Clarendon National Insurance Co. 733 F. Supp. 1009 (E.D. N.C. 1990).

  51. 51.

    Allianz Life Insurance Co. of North America v American Phoenix Life and Reassurance Co. 2000 U.S. Dist. Lexis 7216 (D. Minn.).

  52. 52.

    Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 24 (1983), aff’g 656 F.2d 933 (4th Cir. 1981), rehearing denied, 664 F.2d 936 (4th Cir. 1981) stating that any doubts concerning the scope of arbitrable issues should be resolved in favour of arbitration. AT&T Technologies Inc. v Communications Workers of Am., 475 U.S. 643, 650 (1986), vacating and remanding 751 F.2d 203 (7th Cir. 1984) and stating that where contract contains arbitration clause , there is presumption of arbitrability . Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos. v Dobson, 513 U.S. 265, 270 (1995), rev’g 628 So.2d 354 (Ala. 1993) (whereby it was stated that the FAA was enacted to overcome corts’ refusal to enforce agreements to arbitrate; Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v Soler Chrysler-Plymouth Inc., 473 U.S. 614, 631 (1985), aff’g in part, rev’g in part 723 F.2d 155 (1st Cir. 1983) where it was held that the policy in favor of arbitration applies with special force in international commerce (opinion on remand, 814 F.2d 844 (1st Cir. 1987). Minnesota law also requires deference to arbitration clauses; See Niazi v St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co., 121 N.W.2d 349, 355 (Minn. 1963) (where the arbitration has been looked on with favour in state and Brothers Jurewicz Inc. v Atari Inc., 296 N.W.2d 422, 427 (Minn. 1980) where the arbitration was accorded “preferred status”.

  53. 53.

    Hobbs Padgett & Co. (Reinsurance) Ltd. v JC Kirkland, Lloyd’s 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 547 (1969).

  54. 54.

    Allianz Life Insurance Co. of North America v American Phoenix Life and Reassurance Co. 2000 U.S. Dist. Lexis 7216 (D. Minn.).

  55. 55.

    Allianz Life Insurance Co. of North America v American Phoenix Life and Reassurance Co. 2000 U.S. Dist. Lexis 7216 (D. Minn.).

  56. 56.

    Allianz Life Insurance Co. of North America v American Phoenix Life and Reassurance Co. 2000 U.S. Dist. Lexis 7216 (D. Minn.).

  57. 57.

    Contracting Northwest Inc. v City of Fredericksburg, 713 F.2d 382, 387 (8th Cir. 1983).

  58. 58.

    Frank B. Hall Inc. v Colorado School Districts Self-Insurance Pool No. 92-CV-225 (Colo. Dist. Ct. March 26, 1993).

  59. 59.

    McDonald (2001), pp. 336–338.

  60. 60.

    Connecticut General Life Insurance. Co. v Sun Life Insurance Co. of Canada 210 F.3d 771 (7th Cir. 2000).

  61. 61.

    Connecticut General Life Insurance. Co. v Sun Life Insurance Co. of Canada 210 F.3d 771 (7th Cir. 2000) at *774; McDonald (2001), pp. 336–338.

  62. 62.

    Connecticut General Life Insurance. Co. v Sun Life Insurance Co. of Canada 210 F.3d 771 (7th Cir. 2000); McDonald (2001), pp. 336–338.

  63. 63.

    Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co. v. Swiss Reinsurance Co. of America, 246 F.3d 219 (2d Cir. 2001).

  64. 64.

    Security Life Insurance Co. of America v Hannover Life Reinsurance Co. of America, 2001 WL 392412 (D. Minn.).

  65. 65.

    McDonald (2001), p. 339.

  66. 66.

    National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh v Starr Technical Risks Agency, No. 600263/06, 2006 WL 304746 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 8, 2006).

  67. 67.

    National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh v Starr Technical Risks Agency, No. 600263/06, 2006 WL 304746 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 8, 2006) at *2.

  68. 68.

    National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh v Starr Technical Risks Agency, No. 600263/06, 2006 WL 304746 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 8, 2006) at *2.

  69. 69.

    National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh v Starr Technical Risks Agency, No. 600263/06, 2006 WL 304746 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 8, 2006) at *2.

  70. 70.

    National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh v Starr Technical Risks Agency, No. 600263/06, 2006 WL 304746 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 8, 2006) at *4.

  71. 71.

    National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh v Starr Technical Risks Agency, No. 600263/06, 2006 WL 304746 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 8, 2006) at *5.

  72. 72.

    National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh v Starr Technical Risks Agency, No. 600263/06, 2006 WL 304746 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 8, 2006) at *5.

  73. 73.

    National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh v Starr Technical Risks Agency, No. 600263/06, 2006 WL 304746 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 8, 2006) at *5.

  74. 74.

    National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh v Starr Technical Risks Agency, No. 600263/06, 2006 WL 304746 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 8, 2006) at *5; Chiafullo et al. (2007), pp. 469–470.

  75. 75.

    Merit Ins. Co v Leatherby Ins. Co., 714 F.2d 673,679 (7th Cir. 1983); Barlow Lyde and Gilbert LLP (2009), pp. 941–942.

  76. 76.

    DiUbaldo (2008), p. 83.

  77. 77.

    DiUbaldo (2008), p. 83.

  78. 78.

    DiUbaldo (2008), p. 83.

  79. 79.

    Compania Espanola de Petroleos S.A. v Nereus Shipping S.A., 527 F2d 966 (2d Cir. 1975).

  80. 80.

    Wyerhaeuser Co v Western Seas Shipping Co 743 F.2d 635 (9th Cir. 1984).

  81. 81.

    Howsam v Dean Witer Reynolds Inc.537 US 79 (2002).

  82. 82.

    Green Tree Financial Corp v Bazzle 539 US 444 (2003).

  83. 83.

    Howsam v Dean Witer Reynolds Inc.537 US 79 (2002).

  84. 84.

    Green Tree Financial Corp v Bazzle 539 US 444 (2003).

  85. 85.

    Argonaut Ins. Co. v Century Indemn. Co 2007 US Dist. LEXIS 65863.

  86. 86.

    Argonaut Ins. Co. v Century Indemn. Co 2007 US Dist. LEXIS 65863.

  87. 87.

    DiUbaldo (2008), pp. 105–107.

  88. 88.

    Tong Chun Fai and Dewan (2009), pp. 70–71.

  89. 89.

    Tong Chun Fai and Dewan (2009), p. 72; Grais (2007), p. 18-5.

  90. 90.

    Tong Chun Fai and Dewan (2009), p. 74.

  91. 91.

    Ludwig and Chester (2008), p. 1.

  92. 92.

    Local 1351 Int’l Longshoremens Ass’n v Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 214 F.3d 566, 570–571 (5th Cir. 2000) noting that the FAA 1925 only grants the district court the power to enforce consolidation if it is expressly provided for in the contract. Accord Champ v Siegel Trading Co., 55 F. 3d 269, 275–275 (7th Cir. 1995). DiUbaldo (2008), p. 84.

  93. 93.

    Ludwig and Chester (2008), p. 1.

  94. 94.

    Thomas et al. (2011), § 40-22.

  95. 95.

    Local 1351 Int’l Longshoremens Ass’n v Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 214 F.3d 566, 570–571 (5th Cir. 2000) noting that the FAA 1925 only grants the district court the power to enforce consolidation if it is expressly provided for in the contract. Accord Champ v Siegel Trading Co., 55 F. 3d 269, 275–275 (7th Cir. 1995). DiUbaldo (2008), p. 84.

  96. 96.

    Government of U.K. of Gr. Brit. v Boeing Co., 998 F.2d 68 (2d Cir. 1993).

  97. 97.

    Government of U.K. of Gr. Brit. v Boeing Co., 998 F.2d 68 (2d Cir. 1993).

  98. 98.

    Compania Espanola de Petroleos S.A v Nereus Shipping, S.A., 527 E2d 966 (2d Cir. 1975), cert. denied 426 U.S. 936 (1976).

  99. 99.

    Compania Espanola de Petroleos S.A v Nereus Shipping, S.A., 527 E2d 966 (2d Cir. 1975), cert. denied 426 U.S. 936 (1976).

  100. 100.

    Government of U.K. of Gr. Brit. v Boeing Co., 998 F.2d 68 (2d Cir. 1993).

  101. 101.

    Ostrager and Vyskocil (1996), §§14-04, 14-43, 14-44.

  102. 102.

    Local 1351 Int’l Longshorements Ass’n v Sea-Land Serv. Inc., 214 F.3d 566, 570–571 (5th Cir. 2000). Accord Champ. v Siegel Trading Co., 55 F.3d 269, 274–275 (7th Cir. 1995) .U.K. v Boeing Co., 998 F.2d 68,69 (2d Cir. 1993). Am. Centennial Ins. Co. v Nat’l Cas. Co., 951 F.2d 107,108 (6th Cir. 1991); DiUbaldo (2008), p. 84.

  103. 103.

    9 U.S.C.A. §4.

  104. 104.

    For example, in Government of U.K. of Gr. Brit, v Boeing Co, 998 H.2d 68 (2d Cir.1993) abrogated by Green Tree Fin. Corp v Bazzle, 539 U.S. 444 (2003) as recognized in Stoh-Nielson SA v Ammal Feeds Intern, Corp., 548 FJd 85, 100 (2008), the Second Circuit refused to consolidate arbitrations of two disputes arising from a single incident without the full consent of the parties even though the contracts and issues were identical and there were clear efficiencies in consolidation . Boeing thus reversed the Second Circuit’s original view that the FAA conferred upon the Federal Court the power to order consolidation of arbitration proceedings . Compania Espanola de Peiroleos, S.A. ν Nereus Shipping. S.A., 527 F.2d 966 (2d Cir. 1975). The majority of Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal considering the issue of consolidation had held that a court could not order the consolidation of arbitration proceedings arising under separate agreements without the consent of the parties. Del Webb Construction v Richardson Hospital Authority. 823 F.2d 145 (5th Cir. 1987). One notable exception is in the First Circuit which ruled in New England Energy ν Keystone Shipping Co, 855 F.2d 1.5 (1st Cir. 1988), cert, denied, 489 U.S. 1077 (1989). that where Massachusetts law governed, the Massachusetts Arbitration Act provisions expressly providing for consolidation were not inconsistent with the FAA and thus were not preempted; King and Matosky (2011), p. 70.

  105. 105.

    Stolt-Nielsen S.A v Animal Feeds Int’Ί Corp. (“Stolt-Nielsen”), 130 S.Ct.1758 (2010).

  106. 106.

    Dotseth and Loynes (2011), p. 362.

  107. 107.

    Markel International Insurance Co. v Westchester Fire Insurance Co., 442 F. Supp.2d 200 (D. N.J. 2006).

  108. 108.

    Ten Cate (2004), p. 150.

  109. 109.

    Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London v Cravens Dargan & Co., No. CV 05-4266, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39724 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2005), aff’d 197 Fed Appx. 645 (9th Cir. 2006).

  110. 110.

    DiUbaldo (2008), p. 85.

  111. 111.

    9 U.S.C.A. § 4.

  112. 112.

    Del E. Webb Construction v Richardson Hospital Authority 823 F.2d 145, (5th Cir. 1987).

  113. 113.

    Del E. Webb Construction v Richardson Hospital Authority 823 F.2d 145, 150 (5th Cir. 1987); DiUbaldo (2008), p. 85.

  114. 114.

    Del E. Webb Construction v Richardson Hospital Authority 823 F.2d 145 (5th Cir. 1987); DiUbaldo (2008), p. 85.

  115. 115.

    Del E. Webb Construction v Richardson Hospital Authority 823 F.2d 145, at *150 s (5th Cir. 1987); DiUbaldo (2008), p. 85.

  116. 116.

    Howsam v Dean Witter Reynolds Inc., 537 US 79, (2002).

  117. 117.

    Howsam v Dean Witter Reynolds Inc., 537 US 79, at *85 (2002). Shaw’s Supermarkets Inc. v United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 791, 321 F.3d at *225. Employers Insurance of Wasau v First State Insurance Group, 324 F. Supp. 2d at *336. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds v Century Indemnity Co., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16675 at *6–8. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds v Cravens Dargan & Co, 197 F. App’x 645, 647 (9th Cir. 2006); Employers Ins. Co of Wasau v Century Ind. Co., 443 F.3d 573, 577–578 (7th Cir. 2006). Allstate Ins. Co. v Global Reinsurance Corp., No 06 Civ. 4419, 2006 WL 2289999, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 8, 2006); Certain Underwriters at Lloyds London v Westchester Fire Ins., 489 F.3d 580, 585–586 (3d Cir. 2007). Dockser v Schwarztberg, 433 F.3d 421, 427 (4th Cir. 2006); DiUbaldo (2008), pp. 86–88.

  118. 118.

    DiUbaldo (2008), p. 88.

  119. 119.

    Vigo Steamship Co v Marship Corporation of Monrovia 26 NY 2d 157, 400 US 819 (1970).

  120. 120.

    Re Matter of Arbitration between Chilean Nitrate & Iodine Sales and Intermarine Corp. No. 71 Civ. 2348 HRT 1972 AMC 2460 (SDNY 1971).

  121. 121.

    Lavino Shipping Co. v Santa Cecilia Co. No 72 Civ. 3097, 1972 AMC 2454 (SDNY 1972).

  122. 122.

    Compania Espanola de Petroleos SA v Nereus Shipping SA 527 F2d 966 (2d Cir. 1975)426 US 936 (1976).

  123. 123.

    Ludwig and Chester (2008), pp. 1–7.

  124. 124.

    Weyerhaeuser Co v Western Seas Shipping Co., 743 F2d 635 (9th Cir, 1984).

  125. 125.

    Compania Espanola de Petroleos SA v Nereus Shipping SA 527 F2d 966 (2d Cir. 1975)426 US 936 (1976).

  126. 126.

    Ludwig and Chester (2008), p. 8.

  127. 127.

    Weyerhaeuser Co v Western Seas Shipping Co., 743 F2d 635 (9th Cir, 1984).

  128. 128.

    Volt Info. Scis., Inc. v Bd. of Trs. of Stanford Univ., 489 U.S. 468, (1989).

  129. 129.

    Volt Info. Scis., Inc. v Bd. of Trs. of Stanford Univ., 489 U.S. 468, 476 (1989).

  130. 130.

    Howsam v Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. 537 U.S. 79, (2002).

  131. 131.

    Howsam v Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. 537 U.S. 79, 84–85, (2002) at 84 , quoting John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v Livingston, 376 U.S. 543, 557 (1964).

  132. 132.

    Howsam v Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. 537 U.S. 79, (2002).

  133. 133.

    Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s v Cravens Dargan & Co., 197 F. App’x 645, (9th Cir. 2006); DiUbaldo (2008), p. 86.

  134. 134.

    Shaw s Supermarkets, Inc. v United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 791, 321 F.3d 251 (1st Cir. 2003).

  135. 135.

    Shaw’s Supermarkets, Inc. v United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 791, 321 F.3d 251 (1st Cir. 2003) at 255.

  136. 136.

    Green Tree Financial Corp. v Bazzle 539 U.S. 444, (2003).

  137. 137.

    Green Tree Financial Corp. v Bazzle 539 U.S. 444, (2003), at 447.

  138. 138.

    Green Tree Financial Corp. v Bazzle 539 U.S. 444, (2003), at 454.

  139. 139.

    Green Tree Financial Corp. v Bazzle 539 U.S. 444, (2003), at 452–453; DiUbaldo (2008), p. 86.

  140. 140.

    Employers Ins. Co. of Wausau v Century Indem. Co., 443 F.3d, 573 (7th Cir. 2006).

  141. 141.

    Shaw’s Supermarkets, Inc. v United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 791, 321 F.3d 251 (1st Cir. 2003).

  142. 142.

    Howsam v Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. 537 U.S. 79, (2002).

  143. 143.

    Employers Ins. Co. of Wausau v Century Indem. Co. 324 F. Supp. 2d at 336.

  144. 144.

    Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s v Cravens Dargan & Co., No. 05-2809, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16675, at *6–8 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 1, 2005).

  145. 145.

    Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s v Century Indemnity Co. 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16675.

  146. 146.

    Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s v Century Indemnity Co. 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16675, at *8.

  147. 147.

    Employers Ins. Co. of Wasau v Century Indem. Co., 443 F. 3d, (7th Cir. 2006).

  148. 148.

    Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s v Cravens Dargan & Co. (2005) 197 F., 646.

  149. 149.

    Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s v Cravens Dargan & Co. (2005) 197 F., 646, 647; DiUbaldo (2008), p. 88.

  150. 150.

    Re Allstate Insurance Co. No. 06 Civ. 4419 (DAB), 2006 WL 2289999, (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 8, 2006).

  151. 151.

    Re Allstate Insurance Co. No. 06 Civ. 4419 (DAB), 2006 WL 2289999, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 8, 2006); DiUbaldo (2008), p. 88.

  152. 152.

    Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London v Westchester Fire Ins., 489 F.3d 580, (3d Cir. 2007).

  153. 153.

    Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London v Westchester Fire Ins., 489 F.3d 580, 585–586 (3d Cir. 2007).

  154. 154.

    Connecticut General Life Insurance Co. v Sun Life Assurance Co of Canada 210 F.3d 771 (7th Cir. 2000); DiUbaldo (2008), p. 89.

  155. 155.

    Connecticut General Life Insurance Co. v Sun Life Assurance Co of Canada 210 F.3d 771, at *773 (7th Cir. 2000); DiUbaldo (2008), p. 89.

  156. 156.

    DiUbaldo (2008), p. 89.

  157. 157.

    Howsam v Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. 537 U.S. 79, (2002).

  158. 158.

    Green Tree Financial Corp. v Bazzle 539 U.S. 444, (2003).

  159. 159.

    DiUbaldo (2008), pp. 88–89.

  160. 160.

    Argonaut Ins. Co v Century Indem. Co. CA No. 05-5355, 2007 US Dist. LEXIS 65863 (ED Pa Sept. 6, 2007).

  161. 161.

    Argonaut Ins. Co v Century Indem. Co. CA No. 05-5355, 2007 US Dist. LEXIS 65863 (ED Pa Sept. 6, 2007), at *17.

  162. 162.

    Argonaut Ins. Co v Century Indem. Co. CA No. 05-5355, 2007 US Dist. LEXIS 65863 (ED Pa Sept. 6, 2007).

  163. 163.

    Ludwig and Chester (2008), pp. 25–29.

  164. 164.

    Connecticut General Life Ins. Co v Sun Life Assurance Co of Canada 210 F3d, 771, (7th Cir. 2000), whereby consolidation was ordered at least in part under an implied agreement; Ludwig and Chester (2008), p. 31.

  165. 165.

    Hartford Accident and Indem. Co. v Swiss Reinsurance America Corp. 246 F3d 219 (2d Cir. 2001) whereby consolidation was allowed even where the contract itself did not clearly resolve the issue of consolidation; Ludwig and Chester (2008), pp. 31–32.

  166. 166.

    Ludwig and Chester (2008), pp. 30–32.

  167. 167.

    Dorinco Reinsurance Co. v Ace American Insurance Co, No. 07-12622, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4593(E.D. Mich. Jan. 23, 2008).

  168. 168.

    Markel International Insurance Co. v Westchester Fire Insurance Co., 442 F. Supp.2d 200 (D. N.J. 2006).

  169. 169.

    Dorinco Reinsurance Co. v Ace American Insurance Co, No. 07-12622, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4593(E.D. Mich. Jan. 23, 2008) at 29, 30.

  170. 170.

    Aegis Security Insurance Co. v Philadelphia Contributionship, 416 F. Supp.2d 303 (M.D. Pa. 2005). 40.

  171. 171.

    King and Matosky (2011).

  172. 172.

    Milligan-Wbyte and Cannon Veed (1989), p. 120.

  173. 173.

    Integrity Inc. Co. v Am. Centennial Ins. Co., 885 F. Supp. 69, at *71 (S.D.N.Y. 1995); Hummer (1996), p. 232.

  174. 174.

    Laschco Inc. v Ericksoil, 700 F. Supp. 960, 963 (N.D. Ill. 1998); Hummer (1996), p. 232.

  175. 175.

    FAA 9 U.S.C.A. § 7.

  176. 176.

    FAA 9 U.S.C.A. § 7.

  177. 177.

    Thomas et al. (2011), § 40-25.

  178. 178.

    Integrity Inc. Co. v Am. Centennial Ins. Co., 885 F. Supp. 69, at *71 (S.D.N.Y. 1995); Hummer (1996), p. 232.

  179. 179.

    9 U.S.C. §7.

  180. 180.

    Hires Parts Serv. v NCR Corp., 859 F. Supp. 349, 353 (N.D. Ind. 1994); Hummer (1996), p. 232.

  181. 181.

    Hummer (1996), p. 232.

  182. 182.

    Hummer (1996), p. 233.

  183. 183.

    FAA 9 U.S.C.A. § 7.

  184. 184.

    DiUbaldo (2008), p. 90.

  185. 185.

    Hay Group v E.B.S. Acquisition Group, 360 F.3d 404, 407 (3d Cir. 2004) noting that nothing in the text of section7 of the FAA 1925 empowers an arbitrator to compel prehearing depositions; DiUbaldo (2008), p. 94.

  186. 186.

    Amgen Inc. v Kidney Ctr. of Del. County, Ltd., 879 F. Supp. 878, (N.D. Ill. 1995); DiUbaldo (2008), p. 94.

  187. 187.

    Stanton v Paine Webber Jackson & Curtis, Inc., 685 F. Supp. 1241, (S.D. Fla. 1988).

  188. 188.

    Amgen Inc. v Kidney Ctr. of Del. County, Ltd., 879 F. Supp. 878, (N.D. Ill. 1995).

  189. 189.

    Amgen Inc. v Kidney Ctr. of Del. County, Ltd., 879 F. Supp. 878, 882 (N.D. Ill. 1995).

  190. 190.

    DiUbaldo (2008), p. 95.

  191. 191.

    COMSAT Corp. v National Science Foundation 190 F3d. (1999).

  192. 192.

    COMSAT Corp. v National Science Foundation 190 F3d. at 276 (1999); DiUbaldo (2008), p. 95.

  193. 193.

    Hay Group v E.B.S. Acquisition Corp. 360 F3d (1999).

  194. 194.

    DiUbaldo (2008), p. 95.

  195. 195.

    Odfjell ASA v Celanese AG 328 F. Supp. 2d 505, 507 (S.D.N.Y. 2004).

  196. 196.

    Atmel Corp. v LM Ericsson Telefon, AB 371 F. Supp. 2d 402, 403 (S.D.N.Y. 2005).

  197. 197.

    Gresham v. Norris, 304 F. Supp. 2d 795, 796–797 (E.D. Va. 2004) noting that “a federal court may not compel a third party to comply with an arbitrator’s subpoena for prehearing discovery , absent a showing of special need or hardship”; DiUbaldo (2008), p. 96.

  198. 198.

    Re Arbitration Between Scandinavian Reinsurance Co. Ltd. v Continental Cas. Co., No. 04-C-7020, (N.D. Ill. Dec. 10, 2004).

  199. 199.

    Amgen Inc. v Kidney Ctr. of Del. County, Ltd., 879 F. Supp. 878 (N.D. Ill. 1995).

  200. 200.

    Re Arbitration Between Scandinavian Reinsurance Co. Ltd. v Continental Cas. Co., No. 04-C-7020, at 3–4, (N.D. Ill. Dec. 10, 2004).

  201. 201.

    DiUbaldo (2008), p. 97.

  202. 202.

    In re Republic of Kazakhstan v Biederman Int’l (Kazakhstan), 168 F.3d 880 (5th Cir. 1999).

  203. 203.

    NBC, Inc. v Bear Stearns & Co., 165 F.3d 184 (2d Cir. 1999).

  204. 204.

    Maloney et al. (2000), p. 479.

  205. 205.

    NBC, Inc. v Bear Stearns & Co., 165 F.3d 184 (2d Cir. 1999).

  206. 206.

    In re Republic of Kazakhstan v Biederman Int’l (Kazakhstan), 168 F.3d 880 (5th Cir. 1999).

  207. 207.

    Maloney et al. (2000), p. 480.

  208. 208.

    Comsat Corp. v National Science Found., 190 F.3d 269 (4th Cir. 1999).

  209. 209.

    Permitting subpoenas requiring production of documents.

  210. 210.

    Appeal filed, 95 F.3d 562 (7th Cir. 1996), appeal dismissed on other grounds, 101 F.3d 110 (7th Cir. 1996).

  211. 211.

    Comsat Corp. v National Science Found., 190 F.3d 269 (4th Cir. 1999).

  212. 212.

    Koch Fuel Int’l Inc. v M/V South Star, 118 F.R.D. 318 (E.D.N.Y. 1987).

  213. 213.

    Comsat Corp. v National Science Found., 190 F.3d 269 (4th Cir. 1999).

  214. 214.

    Maloney et al. (2000), p. 480.

  215. 215.

    National Casualty Co. v First State Insurance Group, 430 E3d 492 (1st Cir. 2005); Chiafullo et al. (2007), p. 462.

  216. 216.

    National Casualty Co. v First State Insurance Group, 430 E3d 492 (1st Cir. 2005) at *495–496; Chiafullo et al. (2007), p. 462.

  217. 217.

    National Casualty Co. v First State Insurance Group, 430 E3d 492 (1st Cir. 2005) at *495–496; Chiafullo et al. (2007), p. 462.

  218. 218.

    National Casualty Co. v First State Insurance Group, 430 E3d 492 (1st Cir. 2005) at *496; Chiafullo et al. (2007), p. 462.

  219. 219.

    National Casualty Co. v First State Insurance Group, 430 E3d 492 (1st Cir. 2005) at *496; Chiafullo et al. (2007), p. 463.

  220. 220.

    9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(3) 2006); Chiafullo et al. (2007), p. 463.

  221. 221.

    National Casualty Co. v First State Insurance Group, 430 E3d 492 (1st Cir. 2005) at *497; Chiafullo et al. (2007), p. 463.

  222. 222.

    National Casualty Co. v First State Insurance Group, 430 E3d 492 (1st Cir. 2005) at *498 [quoting Hoteles Condado Beach, La Concha & Convention Ctr. v Union de Tronquistas Local 901, 763 E2d 34, 40 (1st Cir. 1985)]; Chiafullo et al. (2007), p. 463.

  223. 223.

    National Casualty Co. v First State Insurance Group, 430 E3d 492 (1st Cir. 2005) at *498 [quoting Hoteles Condado Beach, La Concha & Convention Ctr. v Union de Tronquistas Local 901, 763 E2d 34, 40 (1st Cir. 1985)]; Chiafullo et al. (2007), p. 463.

  224. 224.

    National Casualty Co. v First State Insurance Group, 430 E3d 492 (1st Cir. 2005) at *498 [quoting Hoteles Condado Beach, La Concha & Convention Ctr. v Union de Tronquistas Local 901, 763 E2d 34, 40 (1st Cir. 1985)]; Chiafullo et al. (2007), p. 463.

  225. 225.

    Schmitz (2006), pp. 1214–1216.

  226. 226.

    Princeton Ins. Co. v Vergano, 883 A. 2d 44, 61–67 (Del. Ch. 2005); Schmitz (2006), pp. 1214–1218.

  227. 227.

    The AAA International Arbitration Rules, provide for a presumption that hearings remain private, but, that selected awards may be publicly available, unless the parties agree otherwise, and require the arbitrators, but not the parties, to maintain the confidentiality of arbitration proceedings and awards. The Internal Rules of the ICC, similarly require arbitrators and administrators, to maintain the confidential nature of their arbitral tribunal’s internal operations, by refraining from disclosing evidence or information they learn through their participation in the arbitration; Schmitz (2006), pp. 1219–1220.

  228. 228.

    Plaskett v Bechtel Int’l, 243 F. Supp. 2d 334, 340–345 (D.VI. 2003), finding arbitration agreements with a confidentiality provision unconscionable; Schmitz (2006), p. 1220.

  229. 229.

    AT&T Corp. v Pub. Serv Enters., Nos. CIV A. 99-4975, CIV A. 99-6099 2000 WL 387738, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 12, 2000), dismissing breach of a confidentiality contract claim, on grounds that, the claimant waived the confidentiality provision, to the extent it sought to use that provision in the same litigation; Schmitz (2006), p. 1220.

  230. 230.

    Omaha Indem. Co. v Royal Am. Managers, Inc. 140 F.R.D. 398, 400 (W.D.Mo. 1991), finding that federal prosecutors could use arbitration testimony transcripts, subject to the arbitrating parties’ stipulation of confidentiality for impeachment, in a criminal trial involving these parties; City of Newark v Law Dep’t, 760 N.Y.S. 2d 431, 431–437 (N.Y. App. Div 2003), finding that an arbitration panel’s confidentiality order was ineffectual, to the extent it conflicted with the public’s access to such information, under the Freedom of Information Law; Schmitz (2006), p. 1220.

  231. 231.

    Brown (2001), p. 975.

  232. 232.

    For example, with regard to documents and information produced during the arbitration, a different approach may be warranted for different types of material and, consequently, the award and the reasons, underlying it, may be treated differently from the transcript of evidence taken during the hearing, witness statements, expert reports, written counsel summaries and legal arguments. Documents disclosed during the hearing, form another category, which calls for different treatment. The extent of any obligation of confidentiality , may depend upon the intended use of the material in question; Collins (1995), pp. 326–327.

  233. 233.

    Associated Electric & Gas Ins. Serv Ltd. v European Reinsurance Co. of Zurich (Bermuda) [2003] UK PC 11 (Jan. 29, 2003) (AEGIS).

  234. 234.

    Thompson and Finn (2007), pp. 75–78.

  235. 235.

    Uff and Noussia (2009).

  236. 236.

    Compania Espanola de Petroleos SA v Nereus Shipping SA, 527 F2d 966 (2d Cir. 1975).

  237. 237.

    Volt Info. Sciences v Board of Trustees [489 US 468 (1989)].

  238. 238.

    Government of UK v Boeing Co, 998 F2d 68 (2d. 1993).

  239. 239.

    Compania Espanola de Petroleos SA v Nereus Shipping SA, 527 F2d 966 (2d Cir. 1975).

  240. 240.

    Government of UK v Boeing Co, 998 F2d 68 (2d. 1993); Collins (1995), pp. 324–326.

  241. 241.

    Weyerhaeuser Company v Western Seas Shipping Co 743 F.2d 635 (9th Circ. 1984).

  242. 242.

    Compania Espanola de Petroleos, S.A. v Nereus Shipping, S.A., 527 F.2d 966 (2d Cir.1975).

  243. 243.

    Compania Espanola de Petroleos, S.A. v Nereus Shipping, S.A., 527 F.2d 966 (2d Cir.1975).

  244. 244.

    Compania Espanola de Petroleos, S.A. v Nereus Shipping, S.A., 527 F.2d 966 (2d Cir.1975).

  245. 245.

    Weyerhaeuser Company v Western Seas Shipping Co, 743 F.2d 635 (9th Circ. 1984).

  246. 246.

    Weyerhaeuser Company v Western Seas Shipping Co, 743 F.2d 635 (9th Circ. 1984).

  247. 247.

    Compania Espanola de Petroleos, S.A. v Nereus Shipping, S.A., 527 F.2d 966 (2d Cir.1975).

  248. 248.

    Baesler v Cont’tal Grain Co, 900 F2d. 1193 (8th Cir. 1990).

  249. 249.

    Protective Life Ins. Corp. v Lincoln Nat’l Life Ins. Corp. v Lincoln Nat’l Life Ins. Corp., 873 F.2d 281 (11th Cir. 1989).

  250. 250.

    Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain v Boeing Co, 998 F2d. 68 (2d Cir. 1993).

  251. 251.

    American Centennial Ins Co v National Casualty Co, 951 F2d 107, (6th Cir. 1991).

  252. 252.

    9 U.S.C. § 4, 761 F. Supp. 472.

  253. 253.

    Compania Espanola de Petroleos, S.A. v Nereus Shipping, S.A., 527 F.2d 966 (2d Cir.1975).

  254. 254.

    Maxum Founds v Salus Corp. 817 F2d. 1086 (4th Cir. 1987).

  255. 255.

    New England Energy Inc. v Keystone Shipping Co, 855 F2d I, 4 (1st Cir. 1989).

  256. 256.

    Compania Espanola de Petroleos, S.A. v Nereus Shipping, S.A., 527 F.2d 966 (2d Cir.1975).

  257. 257.

    Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain v Boeing Co, 998 F2d. 68 (2d Cir. 1993).

  258. 258.

    Compania Espanola de Petroleos, S.A. v Nereus Shipping, S.A., 527 F.2d 966 (2d Cir.1975).

  259. 259.

    Dolling-Baker v Merrett [1991] 2 All E.R. 890.

  260. 260.

    Dolling-Baker v Merrett [1991] 2 All E.R. 890.

  261. 261.

    Robb (2004).

  262. 262.

    [1991] 2 All ER 891.

  263. 263.

    Brown (2001), p. 977; Uff and Noussia (2009).

  264. 264.

    Robb (2004).

  265. 265.

    Dolling-Baker v Merrett [1991] 2 All E.R. 890.

  266. 266.

    Hassneh Insurance Co. of Israel v Mew [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 243.

  267. 267.

    Insurance Co. v Lloyd’s Syndicate [1995]1 Lloyd’s Rep. 272.

  268. 268.

    Insurance Company v Lloyd’s Syndicate, and in Hyundai Engineering v Active Building & Civil Construction (Pte) Limited (in liquidation), unreported, Judgment of 9 March 1994.

  269. 269.

    Such as Oxford Shipping Co v Nippon Yesen Kaisha [The “Eastern Saga”] [1984]2 Lloyd’s Rep. 373 (QB)., Dolling-Baker v Merrett [1990]1 WLR 1205 and Hassneh Insurance Co. of Israel v Mew [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 243.

  270. 270.

    Hassneh Insurance Co of Israel v Stuart J Mew [1993]2 Lloyd’s Rep 243.

  271. 271.

    Robb (2004).

  272. 272.

    Hassneh Insurance Co. of Israel v Mew [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 243.

  273. 273.

    Uff and Noussia (2009).

  274. 274.

    Hassneh Insurance Co of Israel v Stuart J Mew [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 243.

  275. 275.

    Insurance Co v Lloyd’s Syndicate [1995]1 Lloyd’s Rep. 272.

  276. 276.

    Hassneh Insurance Co of Israel v Stuart J Mew [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 243 applied.

  277. 277.

    Hassneh Insurance Co of Israel v Stuart J Mew [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 243.

  278. 278.

    Hassneh Insurance Co of Israel v Mew [1993]2 Lloyd’s Rep 243.

  279. 279.

    In Hassnesh v Mew [1993]2 Lloyd’s Rep 243 relying largely on Dolling-Baker v Merrett [1990]1 WLR 1205 the court found that arbitration proceedings are subject to an implied duty of confidentiality and stated that if privacy is an inherent attitude of the arbitral process, then confidentiality must be as well, simply because privacy is meaningless without its confidentiality corollary. In addition, an exception to the confidentiality rule was found in Hassnesh v Mew [1993]2 Lloyd’s Rep 243 and it was held that disclosure of an arbitral award was permissible if necessary to establish causes of action in a subsequent proceeding. With regards to the circumstances under which an award can be disclosed in subsequent proceedings, Colman J held as follows: (1) if it was reasonably necessary for the establishment or protection of an arbitrating party’s legal rights vis-à-vis a third party, that the award should be disclosed to that third party, in order to found a defence or as the basis for a cause of action, so to disclose it including its reasons would not be a breach of the duty of confidence. (2) if it was reasonably necessary for the establishment by the defendant of his causes of actions against Heath, that he should disclose or in his pleadings quote from the arbitration award , including the reasons of he should be entitled to do so without editing either the award or the reasons and without having to apply to the Court for leave to do. (3) it was to be implied as a matter of business efficacy in the agreement to arbitrate that, if it was reasonably necessary in order to run off the contracts to have access to the award including the reasons the defendant would be entitled to disclose that document to Heath. (4) the documents created by or in the course of an arbitration, to which an objection of confidence attached could not in principle have any different status from any other documents which were the subject of a duty of confidence. There was nothing to justify the voluntary disclosure to a third party of such arbitration documents, other than the award , in anticipation of the commencement of proceedings by or against that third party. And that to disclose such documents without the consent of the other arbitrating party would be a breach of the obligation of confidence. that, in so far as the injunction currently applied to the whole of the reasons as well as the award the order should to that extent be discharged; Robb (2004); Brown (2001), pp. 977–978.

  280. 280.

    Insurance Co v Lloyd’s Syndicate [1995]1 Lloyd’s Rep. 272.

  281. 281.

    Ali Shipping Corp. v Shipyard Trogir [1991]1 W.L.R. 314, C.A.

  282. 282.

    Ali Shipping v Shipyard Trogir (1998)1 Lloyd’s Rep. 643.

  283. 283.

    In Ali Shipping v Shipyard Trogir [1998] 2 All ER 136, the Court of Appeal identified the following further circumstances, in which disclosure of an award would be allowed: “(1) “consent”, i.e. where disclosure is made with the express or implied consent of the party who originally produced the material”. Consent may in exceptional circumstances arise from the custom and practice of the relevant trade. (2) order of the court.(3) leave of the court. The practical scope of this exception i.e. the grounds on which such leave would be granted would give rise to some difficulty. However, on the analogy of the implied obligation of secrecy between banker and customer, leave would be given in respect of: (4) disclosure when, and to the extent to which, it is reasonably necessary for the protection of the legitimate interests of an arbitrating party. Potter LJ followed went on to note that the concept of reasonable necessity ought not to require the party seeking disclosure “to prove necessity regardless of difficulty or expense”. Instead the court was to take a rounded view, “taking account of the nature and purposes of the proceedings for which the material is required, the powers and procedures of the tribunal in which the proceedings are being conducted, the issues to which the evidence or information sought is being directed and the practicality and expense of obtaining such evidence or information elsewhere” however, he held that “it is not enough that an award or reasons might have a commercially persuasive impact” (5) where the interests of justice require. This principle was derived from the judgment of Mance J in London and Leeds Estates Ltd v Paribas Ltd (No 2) [1995] 2 EG 134. Potter LJ held that this was not a wide ranging exception but rather a limited one based upon the importance of a judicial decision being reached upon the basis of truthful or accurate evidence of the witnesses concerned; Robb (2004); Brown (2001), pp. 970–971.

  284. 284.

    Ali Shipping Corporation v Shipyard Trogir [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 643.

  285. 285.

    Associated Electrics and Gas Insurance Ltd (Aegis) v European Reinsurance Co of Zurich [2003] UKPC 11. [2003] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 253.

  286. 286.

    Ali Shipping Corp v Shipyard Trogir [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 643.

  287. 287.

    Lincoln National Life Insurance Co v Sun Life Assurance Co of Canada First Instance--[2004] EWHC 343. [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 737, CA. [2004] EWCA 1660.

  288. 288.

    Uff and Noussia (2009).

  289. 289.

    Lincoln National Life Insurance Co v Sun Life Assurance Co of Canada First Instance--[2004] EWHC 343. [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 737, CA. [2004] EWCA 1660.

  290. 290.

    Lincoln National Life Insurance Co v Sun Life Assurance Co of Canada First Instance--[2004] EWHC 343. [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 737, CA. [2004] EWCA 1660; Woolhouse (2004), pp. 150, 152–153.

  291. 291.

    Lincoln National Life Insurance Co v Sun Life Assurance Co of Canada First Instance--[2004] EWHC 343. [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 737, CA. [2004] EWCA 1660; Woolhouse (2004), pp. 150, 152–153.

  292. 292.

    Lincoln National Life Insurance Co v Sun Life Assurance Co of Canada First Instance--[2004] EWHC 343. [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 737, CA. [2004] EWCA 1660; Woolhouse (2004), pp. 150, 152–153.

  293. 293.

    Woolhouse (2004), pp. 150, 152–153.

  294. 294.

    Associated Electric and Gas Insurance Services Ltd v European Reinsurance Co. of Zurich UKPC 11, (2003)1 WLR 1041.

  295. 295.

    City of Newark v Law Department of New York 760 N.Y.S.2d 431, 436 (App. Div. 2003).

  296. 296.

    City of Newark v Law Department of New York 760 N.Y.S.2d 431, 436 (App. Div. 2003).

  297. 297.

    Green Tree Fin. Corp. v Bazzle, 539 U.S. 444, 451–452 (2003).

  298. 298.

    ARIAS-U.S. and ARIAS-U.S. (2004), p. 22; For example, the 2004 ARIAS-US procedures explicitly state that when parties disagree as to the scope of confidentiality , arbitrators should use their discretion in ordering whether and to what extent the arbitration should remain confidential; DiUbaldo (2008), pp. 103–104.

  299. 299.

    DiUbaldo (2008), pp. 103–104.

  300. 300.

    Sphere Drake Ins. Ltd. v All Am. Life Ins. Co., No. 01-C-5226, 2004 WL 442640 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 8, 2004), denying a party’s motion to vacate a panel’s decision to award summary judgment based on the parties’ position statements. Sheldon v Vermonty, 269F.3d 1202, 1206–1207 (10th Cir. 2001) affirming a district court’s denial of a motion to vacate an arbitral award rendered by a panel based on a motion to dismiss filed prior to the hearing; DiUbaldo (2008), pp. 103–105.

  301. 301.

    Sheldon v Vermonty, 269 F.3d 1202 (10th Cir. 2001).

  302. 302.

    Sheldon v Vermonty, 269 F.3d 1202, 1206 (10th Cir. 2001).

  303. 303.

    Sphere Drake Ins. Ltd., 2004 WL 442640.

  304. 304.

    Sphere Drake Ins. Ltd., 2004 WL 442640, at *3; DiUbaldo (2008), p. 105.

  305. 305.

    DiUbaldo (2008), p. 105.

  306. 306.

    Pacific Employers Insurance Co. v Moglia No. 05 C 1366, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21967 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 27, 2007).

  307. 307.

    Pacific Employers Insurance Co. v Moglia No. 05 C 1366, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21967 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 27, 2007); DiUbaldo (2008), pp. 105–106.

  308. 308.

    DiUbaldo (2008), p. 106.

  309. 309.

    DiUbaldo (2008), p. 106.

References

  • ARIAS-U.S., ARIAS-U.S. (2004) Practical guide to reinsurance arbitration procedure 22, UV, USA

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown AC (2001) Presumption meets reality: an exploration of the confidentiality obligation in international commercial arbitration. Am Univ Int Law Rev 16:969–1025

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiafullo LA, Cruz-Brown KA, Rourke-Hugener J, Monahan JC, Rush DE (2007) Recent developments in excess insurance, surplus lines insurance and reinsurance law. Tort Trial Insur Pract Law J 42:435

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins M (1995) Privacy and confidentiality in arbitration proceedings. Arb Int 11(3):321–336

    Google Scholar 

  • DiUbaldo RW (2008) Evolving issues in reinsurance disputes: the power of arbitrators. Fordham Urban Law J 35:83–106

    Google Scholar 

  • Dotseth K, Loynes K (2011) Consolidation of arbitration after Stolt-Nielsen. Def Couns J 78:362

    Google Scholar 

  • Grais DJ (2007) Consolidation of arbitrations: courts have punted to arbitrators. Now what? Mealys Litig Rep Reinsur 18(5):1

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammesfahr RW, Wright SW (1994) The law of reinsurance claims. Andrews Professional Books, Westtown

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmes EM, Sutin LA (1996) Holmes’ Appleman on insurance. Lexis, Los Angeles

    Google Scholar 

  • Hosack G, Kline C (1998) Current title insurance issues in the U.S.A. Int ILR 6(4):106–109

    Google Scholar 

  • Hummer P (1996) Reinsurance arbitrations from start to finish: a practitioner’s guide. Def Couns 63:228–236

    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

  • King MS, Matosky JE (2011) Considering consolidation. Defense Counsel J 78:70

    Google Scholar 

  • Ludwig B, Chester M (2008) The role of federal courts in consolidating reinsurance arbitrations: the latest cases – many questions still unanswered. New Appleman on insurance: current critical issues in insurance law. Lexis Nexis, Los Angeles

    Google Scholar 

  • Maloney PT, Haddad JM, Kanefsky EP, Whelehan DD (2000) International insurance and reinsurance developments. Int Law 34:473

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald JJ (2001) Reinsurance arbitration 2001: will the new ways cripple arbitration? Def Couns J 68:328–338

    Google Scholar 

  • Milligan-Wbyte J, Cannon Veed M (1989) Bermudian, English and American reinsurance arbitration law and practice and ADR methods. Tort Insur Law J 25:120

    Google Scholar 

  • Monin LO, Brady MJ (1996) Updating reinsurance law developments: the gloves are beginning to come off. Def Couns J 63:219

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Robb A (2004) Confidentiality and arbitration, 39 Essex Street, 5 May 2004. http://www.39essex.com/docs/articles/ARO_Confidentiality_and_arbitration_talk_050504.pdf

  • Schmitz A (2006) Untangling the privacy paradox in arbitration. Univ Kan Law Rev 54:1211–1253

    Google Scholar 

  • Ten Cate IM (2004) Multi-party and multi-contract arbitrations: procedural mechanisms and interpretation of arbitration agreements under US law. Am Rev Int Arb 15:133

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas JE et al (eds) (2011) New Appleman insurance law practice guide, vol 4, Separate lines of insurance. Lexis, Los Angeles

    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 

  • Thompson CR, Finn AMK (2007) Confidentiality in arbitration: a valid assumption? A proposed solution. Disp Resolut J 62:75–79

    Google Scholar 

  • Tong Chun Fai E, Dewan N (2009) Drafting arbitration agreements with “Consolidation” in mind. AIAJ 5:70–94

    Google Scholar 

  • Uff K, Noussia K (2009) On the protection of confidentiality of arbitral proceedings: a comparative approach of the position in England, Australia, U.S.A. and Canada. In: Klammaris K (ed) Fetschrift für Prof. K.D. Kerameus. Kluwer-Sakkoulas, Athens

    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 Proceedings. In: Reinsurance Arbitrations. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-45146-1_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation