May 23, 2012

District Court Declares that Fraudulent Inducement Claim Is Not Available To Arbitrate

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
AXA VERSICHERUNG V. NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE CO.
(CIVIL ACTION NO. 05-10180 MAY 3, 2010)

This lawsuit was initiated by AXA Versicherung (“AXA”) against three subsidiaries of AIG, including New Hampshire Insurance Co. (“New Hampshire”) regarding an reinsurance agreement. The action went to trial where AXA was awarded an amount in excess of thirty-four million dollars plus punitive damages. AIG appealed the decision to the Second Circuit who remanded the matter for a determination of whether certain claims should have been sent to arbitration. Specifically, the question of whether the issue of fraudulent inducement was subject to arbitration under the contract.

AIG argued that many of the alleged misrepresentations were grounded in contract and as a result were subject to the arbitration clause contained in the agreement. AXA, in turn, argued that the fraudulent inducement claim was not duplicative of the contract claims because the misrepresentations centered on future, not past, obligations. The district court ruled in favor of AXA finding that the fraudulent inducement claims sound in fraud and not contract. Furthermore, the district court found that New Hampshire waived its right to arbitrate by failing to raise the issue earlier in the litigation. The district court determined that by waiting until the end of discovery, the parties consented to litigate the action and not arbitrate.

IMPACT (ARBITRATION): Practitioners should always be cognizant of waiving their right to arbitration if it is not asserted early on in the litigation process. The standard applied by many of the jurisdictions is that if discovery is completed (or a substantial portion of the discovery is completed), a party cannot invoke the arbitration clause.

All content © 2012 Goldberg Segalla LLP

About the Author

Listed in Business First's Who's Who in Law, named to New York Super Lawyers, and AV rated by Martindale Hubbell, Daniel W Gerber is a partner of the firm and maintains a national practice in commercial litigation with a focus on complex insurance coverage disputes and analysis. He chairs Goldberg Segalla's Life, Health, Disability and ERISA practice group and co-chairs the firm's Global Insurance Services practice group. Mr. Gerber is admitted to the United States Supreme Court, as well as all Federal and State courts in New York. He argues regularly in...

716-566-5425

About the Author

Jeffrey L. Kingsley is a partner and experienced member of Goldberg Segalla LLP's Global Insurance Services Practice Group.  He maintains an international practice with a focus on complex insurance and reinsurance coverage disputes as well as extra-contractual liability arbitration and litigation.  He has written several articles on recent reinsurance trends including the rise of original policyholder and the expanding power of arbitrators under the Federal Arbitration Act.  He is the co-editor of Goldberg Segalla's Reinsurance Review,...

716-566-5434

Contributors

Thomas F. Segalla, is the co-author of the renowned insurance law treatise Couch on Insurance 3d and is one of the founding partners of the firm.  Mr. Segalla is a nationally recognized reinsurance and insurance expert who has been retained by numerous insurance carriers and policyholders.  His active practice focuses on the defense and insurance coverage aspects of matters involving bad faith; construction site personal injury accidents (Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1) and 241(6)); and toxic tort and environmental issues. As a member of the...

716-566-5480

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.