AAA Yearbook on Arbitration & the Law - 25th Edition - Chapter 4 - The Arbitral Tribunal
Originally from: AAA Yearbook on Arbitration and the Law - 25th Edition
4.01 Disqualification of Arbitrators: Evident Partiality and Related Grounds
Scandinavian Reinsurance Co. Ltd. v. Saint Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 668 F.3d 60 (2d Cir. 2012)
Unless an arbitrator’s failure to disclose overlapping service as an arbitrator in similar matter suggests evident partiality, or would cause a reasonable person to conclude that an arbitrator was partial to one party to the arbitration, the arbitration award should be confirmed.
St. Paul and Scandinavian, both reinsurance companies, entered into a stop-loss retrocessional agreement, a specialized category of reinsurance contracts. The agreement contained a dispute-resolution clause that required binding arbitration for any dispute that arose out of the interpretation, performance, or breach of the agreement. The agreement provided that the dispute be submitted to a panel of three arbitrators, two party-appointed, and one umpire, all of whom would be disinterested active or former executive officers of insurance or reinsurance companies or underwriters at Lloyd’s, London. The parties proceeded in front an arbitral panel regarding disputes that occurred during the course of their dealings. In accordance with the guidelines issued by the AIDA Reinsurance and Insurance Arbitration Society (ARIAS), the arbitrators made disclosures to the parties throughout the arbitration process.