Patton Boggs Reinsurance Newsletter- March 2013: Wisconsin Federal Court Remands Arbitration Counsel Disqualification Action to State Court


Nat'l Cas. Co. v. Utica Mut. Ins. Co., No. 12-cv-657-bbc, 2012 WL 6190084 (W.D. Wisc. Dec. 12, 2012).

The popularity of attorney disqualification applications in reinsurance disputes continues with this dispute venued in Wisconsin. Several reinsurance contracts were entered into, all of which had arbitration provisions. The ceding company and the insured litigated over certain claims presented by the insured and ultimately settled. The cedent billed the reinsurer and the reinsurer questioned its obligation to pay.

This dispute arose when the cedent's counsel demanded arbitration. It turned out that the cedent's counsel had served as defense counsel in the underlying coverage dispute. The reinsurer claimed that this caused a conflict of interest, because counsel represented both the reinsurer's and the cedent's interests in the coverage litigation. When the cedent refused to replace its counsel, the reinsurer filed this action to disqualify counsel in state court, which the cedent removed to federal court.

The Wisconsin federal court remanded the action back to state court after finding that the cedent had not shown that federal subject matter jurisdiction was present. The court originally was concerned whether there was diversity of citizenship, but once that was resolved, the court could not get past the amount in dispute. The reinsurer focused on the amount in dispute in the arbitration. But as the court found, the cedent did not identify the amount in dispute in the arbitration or the cost of replacing arbitration counsel. Although the amount in controversy was eventually identified and exceeded $75,000, the court had an issue concerning whether the amount in controversy in the arbitration was the proper measure for the disqualification action as the object of the disqualification litigation was not compelling arbitration or confirming an arbitration award. The court remanded essentially because it would not adopt the stakes in arbitration as the measure for subject matter jurisdictional purposes.

Written by:

Published In:

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Squire Patton Boggs | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.