R & Q Reinsurance Co. v. Utica Mutual Insurance
18 F. Supp. 3d 389
S.D.N.Y.2014Background
- R&Q moved for summary judgment to confirm the arbitration Award under the FAA (9 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq.), seeking judgment on the October 19, 2013 Final Order.
- The Award resolved, at a conceptual level, R&Q’s liability for Utica’s billings under nine reinsurance certificates related to Goulds Pumps asbestos losses; Utica was Goulds’ primary insurer and R&Q’s reinsurer.
- The panel held that Utica could recover indemnity costs but not defense costs, orphan shares, or declaratory-judgment expenses, and that no specific dollar amount was determined.
- Post-Award, Utica sought reconsideration/clarification; the panel denied reconsideration and clarification but did not rework a dollar figure.
- The court applied limited FAA review, concluded the Award was a final judgment, and granted summary judgment confirming the Award.
- The court noted the potential future interactions between the parties and indicated R&Q would promptly pay the undisputed amount once the Award was confirmed, while continuing to resolve the orphan-share offset.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the Award a final confirmation-worthy judgment? | R&Q argues the Award is final and therefore confirmable. | Utica contends the Award is interim and not final because it lacks a specific dollar amount. | Yes, the Award is final and confirmable. |
| Did the panel resolve the dispute at a final, dollar-for-dollar level? | R&Q notes the panel provided a categorical ruling allowing indemnity costs and left exact figures to be calculated later. | Utica argues the lack of a fixed amount makes the Award non-final. | The Award is final despite lacking a precise dollar figure. |
Key Cases Cited
- Landy Michaels Realty Corp. v. Local 32B-32J, Serv. Emps. Int’l Union, AFL-CIO, 954 F.2d 794 (2d Cir.1992) (arbitration awards deserve limited review if colorable justification exists)
- Hall St. Assocs. L.L.C. v. Mattell, Inc., 552 U.S. 576 (U.S. 2008) (a streamlined FAA confirmation/relief process)
- D.H. Blair & Co. v. Gottdiener, 462 F.3d 95 (2d Cir.2006) (arbitration awards require court enforcement to be effective)
- Hoeft v. MVL Grp., Inc., 343 F.3d 57 (2d Cir.2003) (arbitration awards must be given force as court orders)
- Willemijn Houdstermaatschappij, BV v. Standard Microsystems Corp., 103 F.3d 9 (2d Cir.1997) (limits of arbitral review to preserve efficiency of arbitration)