The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York recently rejected a party’s efforts to avoid arbitration and granted the opposing party’s motion to compel.
Everins Group LLC and Nova Casualty Co. entered into a program management agreement that required Everins to provide services to Nova in exchange for a commission. Everins claimed that Nova underpaid its commission and filed suit.
Nova moved to compel arbitration based on an arbitration clause in the agreement that provided that Nova “has the sole right to elect arbitration as a remedy to resolve any dispute between [Nova] and [Everins] that arises out of the terms, conditions or obligations set forth in the Agreement.” Everins opposed arbitration. It pointed to a provision in the agreement that allowed it to seek “injunctive relief, restraining orders, specific performance or other equitable relief” in court. It also argued that the dispute did not arise out of the agreement and that the agreement had been terminated and the arbitration clause did not survive the termination.
The Southern District of New York rejected Everins’ arguments and granted Nova’s motion to compel arbitration. The court concluded that the arbitration clause was valid and covered the dispute between Nova and Everins. It noted that Everins sought damages, not equitable relief, etc. The court also noted that “[c]onsistent with the strong policies favoring arbitration, courts presume that arbitration clauses survive an agreement’s termination absent some indication of contrary intent in the agreement.” The court concluded there was no such contrary intent here.
Everins Group, LLC v. Nova Casualty Co., No. 1:25-cv-08241 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 12, 2026).
