July 23, 2014

UK Insurer Barred from Enforcing Mandatory Arbitration Provision

In Union Electric Co. v. AEGIS Energy Syndicate 1225, No. 12-3546 (8th Cir. April 19, 2013), the court held that a UK insurer was precluded from enforcing a mandatory arbitration provision due to a policy endorsement stating that “any dispute relating to this Insurance or to a CLAIM . . . shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Missouri and each party agree [sic] to submit to the jurisdiction of the Courts of the state of Missouri.”  In so ruling, the court held that AEGIS’ agreement to have “any dispute” resolved in the courts of the state of Missouri “entirely supplants the [policy’s] mandatory arbitration provision.”  The court also noted that “even if the policy as a whole were ambiguous as to the mandatory arbitration, and we think it is not, UEC would still prevail because it would be entitled to have the ambiguity resolved in its favor.” 

© 2014 Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP.

About the Author

Seth D. Lamden concentrates his practice on representing corporate and individual policyholders in coverage disputes with their insurers. In addition to dispute resolution, Seth counsels clients on matters relating to insurance and risk management, including maximizing insurance recovery for lawsuits and property damage, policy audits and procurement, and drafting contractual insurance specifications and indemnity agreements.

Seth has successfully represented policyholders in coverage disputes against domestic, London market and Bermuda insurers arising from a broad array of claims...

(312) 269-8052.

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 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 pro