Ace Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. AXA RE
Filing
15
OPINION AND ORDER: ACE's petition to confirm the arbitration award is granted. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment for the petitioners and close the case.. (Signed by Judge Denise L. Cote on 1/9/2012) (tro)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------X
:
ACE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE
:
COMPANY (f/k/a CIGNA PROPERTY &
:
CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY) as
:
successor in interest and assignee of
:
IMPERIAL CASUAL AND INDEMNITY COMPANY, :
and ILLINOIS UNION INSURANCE COMPANY
:
(f/k/a GATX INSURANCE COMPANY),
:
Petitioners,
:
:
-v:
:
AXA RE, as successor to ANCIENNE
:
MUTUELLE and L’ABEILLE IGARD,
:
Respondent.
:
:
----------------------------------------X
11 Civ. 7050 (DLC)
OPINION AND ORDER
APPEARANCES:
For petitioners:
Mark W. Stoutenburg
Daryn E. Rush
Thomas E. Klemm
Gibbons, P.C.
One Pennsylvania Plaza, 37th Fl.
New York, NY 10119-3701
DENISE COTE, District Judge:
Petitioners ACE Property & Casualty Insurance Company and
Illinois Union Insurance Company (collectively “ACE”) have filed
this petition for confirmation of an arbitration award pursuant
to § 207 of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 207.
Respondent AXA Re (“AXA”) has not opposed the petition or
otherwise appeared in this action.
For the following reasons,
the petition is granted.
BACKGROUND
The petitioners are successors and assignees of insurance
companies that entered into reinsurance and retrocessional
contracts (collectively “the ACE contracts”) with reinsurers
Ancienne Mutuelle (“Ancienne”) and L’Abeille IGARD (“L’Abeille”)
in the 1970s.
Respondent AXA, a French corporation with its
principal place of business in Paris, is the successor to
Ancienne and L’Abeille.
clauses.
The ACE contracts contain arbitration
The petitioners have attached to their petition two of
the ACE contracts, signed on June 10, 1976, and July 19, 1977,
respectively.
At some time prior to February 2006, the petitioners sought
recovery under the ACE contracts from AXA.
liability.
AXA disputed its
On February 2, 2006, and pursuant to the arbitration
clauses in the relevant ACE contracts, ACE made a demand for
arbitration with AXA regarding the disputed recoveries.
The
arbitration did not actually occur until several years later, in
2010.
The parties arbitrated their dispute in New York on October
12-13, 2011.
witnesses.
Both parties made written submissions and called
On October 16, the panel of two arbitrators and an
2
umpire issued an order finding AXA liable to ACE.
On February
3, the panel issued an award in ACE’s favor of $336,733.86 plus
interest.
AXA has not moved to vacate, modify, or correct the
October 16 order or the February 3 award (collectively “the
Award”).
In the instant action, the petitioners have moved for
confirmation of the Award, pursuant to the New York Convention
on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards
(“New York Convention”), implemented by 9 U.S.C. §§ 201-08.
ACE’s petition was unsealed on October 28.
AXA did not file any
opposition and has not appeared in this action.
DISCUSSION
“[D]efault judgments in confirmation/vacatur proceedings
are generally inappropriate.”
City of New York v. Mickalis Pawn
Shop, LLC, 645 F.3d 114, 136 (2d Cir. 2011) (citation omitted).
Instead, a petition to confirm should be “treated as akin to a
motion for summary judgment based on the movant’s submissions,”
and where the non-movant has failed to respond, the court “may
not grant the motion without first examining the moving party’s
submission to determine if it has met its burden of
demonstrating that no material issue of fact remains for trial.”
D.H. Blair & Co., Inc. v. Gottdiener, 462 F.3d 95, 109-110 (2d
Cir. 2006) (citation omitted).
3
A motion for summary judgment may not be granted unless all
of the submissions taken together “show that there is no genuine
issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is
entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(a); see El Sayed v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 627 F.3d 931, 933
(2d Cir. 2010).
The moving party bears the burden of
demonstrating the absence of a material factual question, and in
making this determination, the court must view all facts in the
light most favorable to the non-moving party.
Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986); El Sayed, 627 F.3d at 933.
When the moving party has asserted facts showing that the
nonmovant’s claims cannot be sustained, the opposing party must
“set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue
for trial,” and cannot “merely rest on the allegations or
denials” contained in the pleadings.
255, 266 (2d Cir. 2009).
Wright v. Goord, 554 F.3d
“A party may not rely on mere
speculation or conjecture as to the true nature of the facts to
overcome a motion for summary judgment,” as “[m]ere conclusory
allegations or denials cannot by themselves create a genuine
issue of material fact where none would otherwise exist.”
Hicks
v. Baines, 593 F.3d 159, 166 (2d Cir. 2010) (citation omitted).
Only disputes over material facts -- “facts that might affect
the outcome of the suit under the governing law” -- will
properly preclude the entry of summary judgment.
4
Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); SCR Joint Venture
L.P. v. Warshawsky, 559 F.3d 133, 137 (2d Cir. 2009).
“Normally, confirmation of an arbitration award is a
summary proceeding that merely makes what is already a final
arbitration award a judgment of the court, and the court must
grant the award unless the award is vacated, modified, or
corrected.”
omitted).
D.H. Blair & Co., 462 F.3d at 110 (citation
A court’s review of an arbitration award is “severely
limited” so as not unduly to frustrate the goals of arbitration,
namely to settle disputes efficiently and avoid long and
expensive litigation.
Willemijn Houdstermaatschappij, BV v.
Standard Microsystems Corp., 103 F.3d 9, 12 (2d Cir.1997)
(citation omitted).
“[T]he showing required to avoid summary confirmation of an
arbitration award is high,” D.H. Blair & Co., 462 F.3d at 110
(citation omitted), and a party moving to vacate an award bears
“the heavy burden of showing that the award falls within a very
narrow set of circumstances delineated by statute and case law.”
Wallace v. Buttar, 378 F.3d 182, 189 (2d Cir. 2004) (citation
omitted).
Thus, a party seeking vacatur of an arbitrator’s
decision “must clear a high hurdle.”
Stolt-Nielson S.A. v.
AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., --- U.S. ----, ----, 130 S.Ct. 1758,
1767 (2010).
“The arbitrator’s rationale for an award need not
be explained, and the award should be confirmed if a ground for
5
tratorls
the
case.
cision can be i
facts
Only a barely colorable justification for t
reached by the
D.H.
from
Bl
The pet
outcome
irm the award.
trators is necessary to
r & Co., 462 F.3d at 110 (citation omitt
- -......
the
II
).
~-------~
ioners
sufficiently supported their petition
and demonstrated that there is no
Respondent AXA has not submitt
petition to
tion of material
any opposition.
irm the arbitrat
t.
refore
l
the
award is granted.
CONCLUSION
ACE/s petition to
irm the arbitration award is granted.
The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment for the
itioners and
close the case.
SO ORDERED:
Dated:
New York New York
January 9 2012
I
1
uni
strict Judge
6
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?