In this final post in our Hunton & Williams Bermuda Form Arbitration Series, we discuss case law involving the Bermuda Form. As explained in a prior post, the Bermuda Form includes an arbitration clause specifying that disputes be submitted to arbitration in London under the English Arbitration Act, but applying the substantive law of New York. The natural consequence of this arbitration provision is that reported decisions analyzing the substantive provisions of the Bermuda Form are few and far between. Little binding precedent has developed—or will develop—regarding interpretation of the Bermuda Form given that awards are issued in confidential arbitration proceedings. Nonetheless, several decisions in England and the United States offer insight into the handling and resolution of disputes involving Bermuda Form policies.
As explained in a prior post in the Blog’s Bermuda Form Arbitration Series, some time after the final hearing, the arbitration tribunal will issue an Award. This post focuses on challenges to and enforcement of that Award.
A prior post in the Blog’s Bermuda Form Arbitration Series discussed several strategic considerations for the discovery and briefing stages of Bermuda Form arbitrations. This post focuses on the final stages of arbitration: The final hearing, and awards of interest and costs.
* * *
The Final Hearing
The presentation of evidence in the “final hearing” of a London arbitration differs substantially from traditional trial practice in the United States. A party’s direct or affirmative evidence is presented in writing in witness statements. Witnesses are presented live only for cross-examination. A party should offer all its witnesses for cross-examination; if a party does not do so, it risks that the arbitrators will not give a witness’s direct evidence much weight. This rule does not apply if the parties agree that a witness need not be presented for cross-examination. Continue Reading Bermuda Form Insurance Arbitration Series: The Final Hearing, and Interest and Costs Awards
A prior post in the Blog’s Bermuda Form Arbitration Series discussed several strategic considerations for London arbitrations involving the Bermuda Form, including considerations for initiating the arbitration, selection of arbitrators, and selection of counsel. This post focuses on strategic considerations for the discovery and briefing stages of London arbitrations.
In this post in the Blog’s Bermuda Form Insurance Arbitration Series, we discuss the use of London-based arbitration to resolve disputes involving the Bermuda Form.
In this post in the Blog’s Bermuda Form Insurance Arbitration Series, we discuss additional features of the Bermuda Form that policyholders should take into consideration.
On December 20, 2016, a New York federal district court granted a petition to compel arbitration, filed by Zurich Insurance Co.’s (“Zurich”), as a subrogee of Adidas Group (“Adidas”), against Crowley Latin America Services LLC (“Crowley”), a transportation and logistics company. The underlying dispute involves losses from a fire-damaged shipment of Adidas clothing. The Court allowed Zurich to compel arbitration based on its service contract with Adidas.
The United Kingdom’s recent vote to sever ties with the European Union will have global economic consequences. The ramifications of an EU economic retraction resulting from financial uncertainty will undoubtedly reach Latin America. The cross-border insurance industry will likely not be spared. Multinationals with local operations must be proactive to get ahead of the storm – now is the time to review the unique aspects of their business and their target markets to pinpoint their ideal risk management structure, and to ensure that their insurance regimes sufficiently anticipate the shifting risks in this dynamic bloc.
Lessons from ‘Deflategate’: Drafting the right arbitrator picks, InsideCounsel
October 27, 2015
Article discussing the insurance implications from the NFL’s so-called “Deflategate” scandal, involving the alleged deflation of footballs used in the 2014 AFC Championship Game. The scandal resulted in a four-game suspension of four-time Super Bowl Champion Tom Brady. When Brady—through the NFL Players Association—appealed the four-game suspension as part of the NFL’s arbitration process, Commissioner Roger Goodell unilaterally appointed himself as arbitrator to hear Brady’s appeal. But Commissioner Goodell appeared decidedly biased against Brady. The arbitration illustrates a common struggle that extends beyond the woes of football fans, and highlights a key dilemma in the arbitration process: What can litigants do when facing a biased arbitrator?