PROTECTIVE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF-COUNTERCLAIM-DEFENDANT-APPELLEE,
v.
LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-COUNTERCLAIM-PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A district court cannot consolidate arbitration proceedings if the parties have not agreed to consolidation in their arbitration agreements.
Lincoln National Life Insurance Company appealed the district court's order consolidating arbitration proceedings between Lincoln and Protective Life …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Consolidation Of Arbitration Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Lincoln National Life Insurance Company (“Lincoln”) appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment and its order consolidating the arbitration of Lincoln’s dispute with appellee Protective Life Insurance Company (“Protective”) and the arbitration of claims between Protective and a third party, Munich American Reassurance Company (“Munich”). The only issue we must decide is whether a district court may consolidate arbitration proceedings if the parties have not provided for consolidation in their arbitration agreements. We conclude that it may not.
We agree with the reasoning of Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Western Seas Shipping Co., 743 F. 2d 635 (9th Cir.1984), in which the court held that under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. sec. 1 et seq., the power of federal courts is “narrowly circumscribed.” Id. at 637. Section 4 of the Act provides that if the existence of an arbitration agreement is in issue, the district court shall proceed to try that issue; once the district court is satisfied that an agreement for arbitration between the parties exists, the district court “shall make an order directing the parties to proceed to arbitration in accordance with the terms of the arbitration agreement.” 9 U.S.C. sec. 4. The statute limits the power of the court to determining whether a written arbitration agreement exists, and if it does, to enforcing it “in accordance with its terms.” Id.
As the Ninth Circuit observed, this interpretation of section 4 “comports with the statute’s underlying premise that arbitration is a creature of contract, and that ‘[a]n agreement to arbitrate before a special tribunal is, in effect, a specialized kind of forum-selection clause that posits not only the situs of suit but also the procedure to be used in resolving the dispute.’ ” Id. (quoting Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co., 417 U.S. 506, 519, 94 S.Ct. 2449, 2457, 41 L.Ed.2d 270 (1974)). Parties may negotiate for and include provisions for consolidation of arbitration proceedings in their arbitration agreements, but if such provisions are absent, federal courts may not read them in.
We conclude, therefore, that “the sole question for the district court is whether there is a written agreement among the parties providing for consolidated arbitration.” Del E. Webb Construction Co. v. Richardson Hospital Authority, 823 F. 2d 145, 149 (5th Cir.1987).1 The agreements between Protective and Lincoln and between Protective and Munich contain their own arbitration clauses, and each clause requires arbitration only between the parties to that agreement. The three parties never agreed to consolidated arbitration. The decision of the district court granting summary judgment and ordering consolida tion is VACATED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
. In holding that the only proper inquiry for the district court is whether the parties have explicitly consented to consolidation in their arbitration agreements, we reject Protective’s argument that district courts have the power to consolidate arbitration proceedings under Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. 42(a) and 81(a)(3). See Del E. Webb Constr. Co., 823 F. 2d at 149-50.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Seretta Constr., Inc. v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 869 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…with the rights of one or more of the parties under their contracts. Litton Bionetics, Inc., 437 A. 2d at 213; see, e.g., Baesler v. Cont’l Grain Co., 900 F. 2d 1193, 1195 (8th Cir.1990); Protective Life Ins. Corp. v. Lincoln Nat’l Life Ins. Corp., 873 F. 2d 281, 282 (11th Cir.1989) (per curiam); Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Western Seas Shipping Co., 743 F. 2d 635, 636-37 (9th Cir. 1984); Bateman Constr., Inc. v. Haitsuka Bros., Ltd., 77 Hawaii 481, 889 P. 2d 58 (1995); Consol. Pac. Eng’g, Inc. v. Greater Anchorage…
-
Booth v. Hume Publ'g, Inc., 902 F.2d 925 (11th Cir. 1990)…otherwise, the ostensible purpose for resort to arbitration, i.e., avoidance of litigation, would be frustrated.”), cert. denied, 363 U.S. 843, 80 S.Ct. 1612, 4 L.Ed.2d 1727 (1960). Cf. Protective Life Ins. Corp. v. Lincoln National Life Ins. Corp., 873 F. 2d 281, 282 (11th Cir.1989) (construing § 4 of the Act, which provides for judicially compelled arbitration, to “narrowly circumscribe[ ]” the power of the federal courts). A party initiates judicial review of an arbitration award not by filing a complain…
-
Larketta Randolph v. Green Tree Fin. Corp.-Alabama & Green Tree Fin. Corp., 244 F.3d 814 (11th Cir. 2001)…of TILA claims where the “arbitration agreement makes no provision for class treatment of disputes” (footnote omitted)). We have not yet spoken to the precise issue, but in Protective Life Insurance Corp. v. Lincoln National Life Insurance Corp., 873 F. 2d 281 (11th Cir.1989), we held that arbitrations may be consolidated only when the arbitration agreement so provides. The reasoning of our Protective Life decision may dictate that we join the Seventh Circuit and the District Court of Minnesota in holding…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co., 417 U.S. 506 (U.S. 1974)
- Weyerhaeuser Co. v. W. Seas Shipping Co., 743 F.2d 635 (9th Cir. 1984)
- DEL E. Webb Constr. v. Richardson Hosp. Auth., 823 F.2d 145 (5th Cir. 1987)