Carriage Court Condominiums Owners Association v. Renaissance Re et al

Filing 11

ORDER AND REASONS granting 9 Motion to Compel Arbitration. The motion is granted, as set forth herein. FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is stayed and administratively closed pending any further order of this Court. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 02/07/2024. (ko)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CARRIAGE COURT CONDOMINIUMS
OWNERS ASSOCIATION

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

No. 23-5544

RENAISSANCE RE ET AL.

SECTION I
ORDER & REASONS

Before the Court is a motion 1 by defendants Renaissance Re – Syndicate 1458
(“ReneRe”), Old Republic Union Insurance Company, NSM Insurance Group, Lloyd’s
America, Inc., and Athens Insurance Service, Inc. (collectively, “defendants”) to
compel arbitration and stay or, alternatively, dismiss the complaint. No opposition
has been filed and the deadline for doing so has passed. 2 For the reasons set forth
below, the Court grants the motion to compel arbitration.
I.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This action arises from Hurricane Ida damage to property owned by Carriage
Court Condominiums Owners Association (“plaintiff”). 3 Plaintiff’s complaint alleges
that plaintiff’s property was covered by an insurance policy (the “policy”) issued by

R. Doc. No. 9.
The motion was set for submission on February 7, 2024. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.5,
any response was due on January 30, 2024. On February 5, 2024, after the deadline
to respond had passed, plaintiff attempted to file a motion for an extension of time to
file an opposition. However, plaintiff did not comply with the local rules and the filing
was not accepted. As of the date of this order, plaintiff has not refiled its motion.
3 See generally R. Doc. No. 1-1.
1
2

1

defendants. 4 Plaintiff asserts that, despite sufficient proof of loss, defendants
breached the policy by failing to tender adequate payment pursuant to the policy. 5
Defendants filed the instant motion to compel arbitration and stay the
proceedings pending arbitration. Defendants argue that the policy contains a valid
arbitration agreement, which is enforceable pursuant to the Convention on the
Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the “Convention”) and the
Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). 6
II.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

The purpose of the Convention is “to encourage the recognition and
enforcement of commercial arbitration agreements in international contracts and to
unify the standards by which agreements to arbitrate are observed and arbitral
awards are enforced in the signatory countries.” Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co., 417
U.S. 506, 520 n.15 (1974). Chapter 2 of the FAA “provides for the [ ] Convention’s
enforcement, grants federal courts jurisdiction over actions governed by the
Convention, and empowers the courts to compel arbitration.” Manheim v. Indep.
Specialty Ins. Co., No. 23-4343, 2023 WL 8370369, at *1 (E.D. La. Dec. 4, 2023)
(Vance, J.) (citing 9 U.S.C. §§ 201, 203, 206). There is a “strong presumption” in favor
of enforcement of arbitration provisions. Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler ChryslerPlymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614, 631 (1985).

Id. ¶ 8.
Id. ¶ 10.
6 R. Doc. No. 9, at 1.
4
5

2

“In determining whether the Convention requires compelling arbitration in a
given case, courts conduct only a very limited inquiry.” Freudensprung v. Offshore
Tech. Servs., Inc., 379 F.3d 327, 339 (5th Cir. 2004) (citing Francisco v. STOLT
ACHIEVEMENT MT, 293 F.3d 270, 273 (5th Cir. 2002)). “[A] court should compel
arbitration if (1) there is a written agreement to arbitrate the matter; (2) the
agreement provides for arbitration in a Convention signatory nation; ‘(3) the
agreement arises out of a commercial legal relationship; and (4) a party to the
agreement is not an American citizen.’” Freudensprung, 379 F.3d at 339 (quoting
Francisco, 293 F.3d at 273). “If these requirements are met, the Convention requires
the district court to order arbitration unless it finds that the agreement is ‘null and
void, inoperative or incapable of being performed.’” Union Bethel Afr. Methodist
Episcopal Church v. Indep. Specialty Ins. Co., No. CV 23-5455, 2023 WL 8804895, at
*2 (E.D. La. Dec. 20, 2023) (Africk, J.) (quoting Freudensprung, 379 F.3d at 339)
In the present action, defendants contend that the four requirements of the
Convention are clearly met because: “(1) the Policy’s Arbitration Agreement is a
written agreement to arbitrate this dispute; (2) the agreement provides for
arbitration in New York, and the United States is a Convention signatory; (3) the
agreement arises out of a commercial relationship between Plaintiff and the
Defendants; and (4) one of the Defendants – RenRe Corp. is not an American citizen.” 7
Considering defendants’ motion and the text of the policy, the Court agrees
that the requirements of the Convention have been met. The policy provides that

7

R. Doc. No. 9-1, at 8.
3

“[a]ll matters in difference between [plaintiff] and [defendant] . . . in relation to this
insurance . . . shall be referred to an Arbitration Tribunal . . .” 8 The policy further
provides that “[t]he Arbitration shall take place in New York, New York and the
Arbitration Tribunal shall apply the law of the State of New York.” 9 The policy is a
commercial property insurance policy and arises out of a commercial legal
relationship. 10 See City of Kenner v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London, No. CV
22-2167, 2022 WL 16961130, at *2 (E.D. La. Nov. 16, 2022) (Vance, J.) (“[T]he
agreement arises out of a commercial legal relationship—the insurance policy issued
by defendants to plaintiff.”). Defendant submitted documentation demonstrating that
ReneRe is incorporated in the United Kingdom. 11 Additionally, nothing indicates that
the arbitration agreement is null and void, inoperative, or incapable of being
performed. Therefore, the Court will compel arbitration.
Pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 3, when an issue subject to an arbitration clause is
raised in a federal court, a court “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.” Because the Court has determined that arbitration is mandated
in this case, it will stay and administratively close this litigation.
III.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly,

R. Doc. No. 9-2, at 51.
Id.
10 Id. at 28.
11 R. Doc. No. 1-3.
8
9

4

IT IS ORDERED that defendants’ motion to compel arbitration is
GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is STAYED AND
ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED pending any further order of this Court.
New Orleans, Louisiana, February 7, 2024.

_______________________________________
LANCE M. AFRICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5