Continental Casualty Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds of London

Dist. Ct. did not err in confirming arbitrators’ orders regarding dispute between parties-insurance companies about how certain claims for re-insurance should be billed. Record showed that both parties had entered into agreement calling for arbitration of parties’ disputes, and that parties disagreed as to how insurance losses covering multiple years should be treated. While plaintiffs believed that arbitrators’ decisions, that found that plaintiffs’ methodology on aggregation of claims was contrary to parties established course of dealing, and that defendant had fully and finally discharged its past, present and future obligations with respect to certain claims, were made outside authority given to them under arbitration agreement, Dist. Ct. could properly find that arbitration agreement gave arbitrators power to make such rulings, especially where agreement gave arbitrators power to resolve disputes on general principles and not just on legal entitlements. Moreover, arbitration agreement allowed arbitrators to not only decide specific billing methodology, but also to identify specific consequences of their ruling with respect to certain claims at issue in arbitration. Ct. emphasized narrow scope of their review when considering arbitral awards.