Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Clearwater Insurance Co. v. Granite State Insurance Co.

United States District Court, Southern District of New York

February 5, 2015

GRANITE STATE INSURANCE CO., et uno, Respondents.


RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, District Judge.

Petitioner Clearwater Insurance Company ("Clearwater") brings this petition to confirm an arbitration award (the "Final Award") against Respondents Granite State Insurance Company and New Hampshire Insurance Company (collectively "Respondents"), pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. (See Doc. No. 1 (the "Petition" or "Pet.").) Respondents "do not oppose the granting of the petition, the entry of an order confirming the arbitration award dated October 23, 2014, or the entry of judgment thereon." (Doc. No. 14 at 2.) Petitioner has also sought to seal and make redactions to various documents filed in this case, alleging that their public filing would violate a confidentiality agreement between the parties. On January 9, 2015, Judge Caproni, while serving as the Part 1 Judge, granted that request. (Doc. No. 8.) However, on January 20, 2015 - after the case was assigned to my docket - the Court directed the parties to submit a joint letter addressing the continued need for sealing "[i]n light of the strong presumption of public access to judicial documents." (Doc. No. 9 at 2.) The parties have since responded, arguing that continued sealing is appropriate. For the following reasons, the Petition is granted and the Final Award is confirmed. However, the parties are directed to submit additional briefing to enable the Court to decide whether continued sealing of certain materials is appropriate.

I. Background

Clearwater and Respondents were parties to multiple reinsurance contracts. (Pet. ¶ 6.) Each contract contained an arbitration clause. (Id. ¶ 7.) In 2012, Clearwater initiated arbitration seeking resolution of disputes concerning amounts billed under the contracts. (Id. ¶¶ 8-9.) Pursuant to the arbitration provisions in the contracts, a three-member arbitration panel was appointed. (Id. ¶¶ 10-11.) After the parties conducted discovery and exchanged written briefs, the panel issued the Final Award on October 23, 2014.[1] (Id. ¶¶ 12-14; Id. Ex. J.) Clearwater then filed the Petition on January 9, 2015, and Respondents filed their response on January 23, 2015. (Doc. Nos. 1-3, 14.)

II. Legal Standard

"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." D.H. Blair & Co. v. Gottdiener, 462 F.3d 95, 110 (2d Cir. 2006) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Hall St. Assocs., L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576, 582 (2008) ("Under the terms of § 9, a court 'must' confirm an arbitration award 'unless' it is vacated, modified, or corrected 'as prescribed' in §§ 10 and 11.") "The arbitrator's rationale for an award need not be explained, and the award should be confirmed if a ground for the arbitrator's decision can be inferred from the facts of the case." D.H Blair, 462 F.3d at 110 (internal quotation marks omitted).

However, even where the petition is unopposed, a court must still treat the petition "as akin to a motion for summary judgment." Id. at 109-110; see also New York City Dist. Council of Carpenters Pension Fund v. Carroll, No. 09-cv-3207 (WHP), 2010 WL 3199673, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 12, 2010). In other words, the facts must show that the petitioner is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. D.H. Blair, 462 F.3d at 110.

III. Discussion

Having carefully reviewed the Final Award, the Court concludes that there is no basis for vacating, modifying, or correcting the Final Award. "[T]he FAA sets forth the 'exclusive' grounds for vacating an arbitration award." Stolt-Nielsen SA v. Animal Feeds Int'l Corp., 548 F.3d 85, 95 (2d Cir. 2008), rev'd and remanded on other grounds, 130 S.Ct. 1758 (2010). Specifically, the Act allows vacatur of an arbitral award:

(1) where the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means;
(2) where there was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrators, or either of them;
(3) where the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing, upon sufficient cause shown, or in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy; or of any other misbehavior by which the rights of any party have been prejudiced; or
(4) where the arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final, and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made.

9 U.S.C. § 10(a). The Second Circuit has also "recognized that the district court may vacate an arbitral award that exhibits a 'manifest disregard' of the law." Stolt-Nielsen, 548 F.3d at 91 (quoting Duferco Int'l Steel Trading v.T. ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.