Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 05 SEPTEMBER 2011

Avoiding Problems With Arbitrator Disclosures: Practical Lessons From Karlseng v. Cooke

For many decades, the reinsurance marketplace has adopted arbitration as the preferred mode of dispute resolution.

United StatesInsurance

To read this Newsletter in full please click here.

For many decades, the reinsurance marketplace has adopted arbitration as the preferred mode of dispute resolution. The expressed goals of arbitration are familiar — timely and efficient resolution of disputes by a panel of experts familiar with the intricacies of the business. One way that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) facilitates those goals is by promoting finality. The grounds for vacating an award pursuant to the FAA are highly limited and difficult to sustain. See 9 U.S.C. § 10(a).

Despite those obstacles, over the last several years it has become commonplace for losing parties to reinsurance arbitrations to challenge the award in court. Thus, even after a lengthy arbitration, the parties now often engage in months, or even years, of appellate litigation before learning whether an award will stand.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from