American Trucking and Transport Insurance Company v. Nelson et al
Filing
107
ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that 101 MOTION to Lift Stay filed by American Trucking and Transportation Insurance Company is GRANTED in part. The stay is lifted for the limited purpose of issuing this Order. For all other purposes, this case remains S TAYED pending arbitration. 48 MOTION to Compel filed by Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance Company is GRANTED. ATTIC and Westchester shall submit Count XI of the Amended Complaint to arbitration. 95 MOTION to Compel Arbitration as to D efendant Dan Dooley filed by Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance Company is GRANTED. The parties shall file a joint status report on or before February 17, 2020, apprising the Court of the status of the arbitration proceeding. Signed by Judge Dana L. Christensen on 8/15/2019. (NOS)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
MISSOULA DIVISION
FILED
AUG 1 5 2019
Clerk, U.S District Court
District Of Montana
Missoula
AMERICAN TRUCKING AND
TRANSPORTATION INSURANCE
COMPANY, a Risk Retention Group,
CV 16-160- M- DLC
Plaintiff,
ORDER
vs.
RALPH NELSON, ROBERT
GORMAN, SR., BOBBY J.
GORMAN, DAN DOOLEY, and
WESTCHESTER
SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendants.
On June 26, 2019, the mandate of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued.
This matter has been remanded to this Court with instructions to compel
arbitration.
On the day the mandate issued, Plaintiff American Trucking and
Transportation Insurance Company ("ATTIC") filed a motion and supporting brief
asking the Court to lift the stay and to retain jurisdiction in part.
102.)
(Docs. 10 I &
Defendant Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance Company ("Westchester")
opposes the motion.
(Doc. 104.)
ATTIC has modified its request in part,
stipulating to a continued stay of proceedings related to its claims against
-1-
Defendant Dan Dooley.
(Doc. 106.)
See 9 U.S.C. § 3 ("If any suit ... be
brought ... upon any issue referable to arbitration under an agreement in writing
for such arbitration, the court ... shall ... stay the trial of the action until such
arbitration has been had ....").
Thus, there is no longer any dispute that
proceedings should remain stayed pending arbitration.
However, several controversies remain.
The Court must now determine
whether to: (1) retain jurisdiction over any motions to confirm, modify, or vacate
the arbitrators' decision; (2) retain jurisdiction over Counts I through X of the
Complaint; and (3) specify that the only arbitrable issue in this matter is whether
Westchester breached its duty to defend under Montana law.
(Doc. 105.)
The
Court considers each issue in turn. 1
I.
Jurisdiction to confirm, modify, or vacate the arbitrators'
decision
ATTIC asks the Court to retain jurisdiction over any motion to confirm,
modify, or vacate the arbitration decision.
retaining jurisdiction for such purpose.
Westchester does not argue against
Upon conclusion of the arbitration
process, either party may file a motion to confirm, modify, or vacate the arbitration
decision.
9 U.S.C. § 9- 11.
As this Court continues to have jurisdiction over the
1
Because the parties are familiar with the facts and history of this case, the Court will not recite
them here but instead incorporate them as necessary to resolve the pending issues.
-2-
stayed proceedings against Dooley, it will also retain jurisdiction over any postarbitration motions.
II.
Jurisdiction over Counts I through X
A TIIC asks the Court to retain jurisdiction over Counts I through X of the
Amended Complaint.
ATTIC did not bring these counts against Westchester but
against the other named defendants; it has since settled its claims against all of the
individual defendants except Dooley.
ATTIC seeks continuing judicial oversight
"over issues involving the resolution of Counts I through X of the Amended
Complaint, including enforceability and reasonableness of the [stipulated
judgments between ATTIC and the individual defendants other than Dooley]."
(Doc. 102 at 5-6.) Westchester argues that ATTIC is seeking to sidestep arbitration
by construing "Counts I through X, insofar as they involve the reasonableness of
the stipulated settlements, [as] somehow a dispute between it and the settled
defendants rather than between it and Westchester."
(Doc. 104 at 9 n.4.)
Westchester has the better argument.
Counts I through X are not themselves arbitrable, as they are claims between
ATTIC an non-parties to the Westchester insurance contract.
Thus, the Court
retains jurisdiction over ATTIC's claims against Dooley, although proceedings
remain stayed.
-3-
However, any legal issue a court would consider in deciding the insurance
coverage dispute between ATTIC and Westchester falls under the purview of the
arbitrator.
The Westchester policy provides that "[t]he Insureds and the Insurer
shall submit any dispute or controversy arising out of or relating to this Policy or
the breach, termination, or invalidity thereof' to arbitration.
(Doc. 49-1 at 1 J.)
Broad on its face, the arbitration provision also must be "construed broadly."
Chiron Corp. v. Ortho Diagnostic Sys., Inc., 207 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000).
The reasonableness of the settlements may give rise to a "dispute or controversy
. .. relating to [the] Policy."
Accordingly, to the degree that the reasonableness
of the settlements bears on Westchester's indemnification or defense of the settled
defendants, such reasonableness falls under Count XI of the Amended Complaint.
If, after arbitration has concluded, an issue remains as to the settlement of Counts I
through X, the Court will consider it at that time.
III.
Choice of Law
A TIIC seeks a declaration that Montana law be applied in the arbitration.
However, the Ninth Circuit squarely held that the Court ought to have granted
Westchester's motion to compel arbitration.
The Court will not sidestep the clear
ruling of the Ninth Circuit by limiting the arbitrator to the question of whether
Westchester breached its duty to defend the individual defendants under Montana
-4-
law.
Here, the arbitration provision encompasses choice of law.
The Court
cannot limit the scope of the arbitration without ignoring the policy's broad
arbitration provision and the Federal Arbitration "liberal federal policy favoring
arbitration."
Moses H Cone Mem 'l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1,
24 ( 1983 ).
Legal issues regarding the scope of arbitrability are themselves
arbitrable.
Id. at 24-25.
Choice of law is one such arbitrable issue.
See Vimar
Dequros y Reasequros, S.A. v. M/V Sky Reefer, 515 U .S. 528,541 (1995).
In this
instance, the parties must raise in arbitration their arguments regarding the
appropriate state law, and the Court will not reserve exclusive jurisdiction over the
measure of damages.
If the arbitrator "exceed[s] [her] powers, or so imperfectly
execute[s] them that a mutual, final and definite award upon the subject matter
submitted was not made," the parties may challenge the arbitrator' s decision in this
9 U.S.C. § 10; see also 9 U .S.C. § 11 (allowing modification of an award
Court.
under limited circumstances).
Moreover, ATTIC misstates Count XI of the Amended Complaint, through
which it sought more than a declaration that Westchester breached its duty to
defend.
In Count XI, ATTIC "s[ought] a judicial declaration of Westchester' s
obligations under the Policy, the Settlement Agreement, and Stipulated Judgment
-5-
and ... a declaration that Westchester is liable for the [$3,121,758.45] Stipulated
Judgment, without regards to the merits of the underlying action."
(Doc. 32 at
Resolution of Count XI requires determinations of: (1) what state law
42.)
applies; (2) whether Westchester violated that law; and (3) if so, the appropriate
financial remedy.
These determinations may be made by an arbitrator in the first
instance.
IV.
Motion to Compel Arbitration as to Defendant Dan Dooley
On September 13, 2018, Westchester filed its motion to compel arbitration
as to Dooley's cross-claim against Westchester.
(Doc. 95.)
The parties agree
that arbitrability of Dooley's cross-claim is legally indistinguishable from that of
Westchester's motion.
(See Docs. 95-97.)
Additionally, Westchester represents
that "Dooley has agreed to arbitrate his claim against Westchester.
3.)
(Doc. 104 at
Thus, the Court will grant the motion.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
( 1) Plaintiff American Trucking and Transportation Insurance Company' s
Motion to Lift Stay and to Enter Orders to Comply with the Mandate (Doc. 101) is
GRANTED in part.
Order.
The stay is lifted for the limited purpose of issuing this
For all other purposes, this case remains STAYED pending arbitration.
(2) Defendant Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance Company's Motion to
-6-
Compel Arbitration (Doc. 48) is GRANTED.
ATTIC and Westchester shall
submit Count XI of the Amended Complaint to arbitration.
(3) Defendant Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance Company' s Motion to
Compel Arbitration as to Defendant Dan Dooley (Doc. 95) is GRANTED.
(4) The parties shall file a joint status report on or before February 17, 2020,
apprising the Court of the status of the arbitration proceeding.
DATED this ~ day of August, 2019.
Dana L. Christensen, Chief Judge
United States District Court
-7-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?