Decision Provides Arbitration Clause Guidance, But Questions Persist
The Appellate Division's decision in 'Matter of Bergassi Group v. Allied World Insurance Co.' offers some straightforward, but valuable, guidance about the interplay between the FAA and CPLR Art. 75, and raises some interesting questions for further review.
April 15, 2021 at 02:00 PM
6 minute read
Agreements to arbitrate are supposed to reduce the amount of litigation in the world. By that standard, the agreement to arbitrate between Bergassi Group LLC (Bergassi) and Allied World Insurance Company (Allied World) has been an utter failure. After Allied World served Bergassi with a demand for arbitration in September 2019, Bergassi launched a proceeding under CPLR Art. 75 to stay the arbitration. In January 2020, Supreme Court, New York County (Tanya Kennedy, J.) granted a permanent stay of arbitration. Pending appellate review of that decision, Bergassi sued Allied World and its attorneys in Westchester County, alleging that Allied World's demand to arbitrate constituted malicious prosecution and abuse of process (Index No. 53708/2020). On April 13, 2021, the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the permanent stay of arbitration in the New York County matter. Only time will tell if the arbitration clause that started all of this will spawn additional litigation. In any case, the Appellate Division's decision offers some straightforward, but valuable, guidance about the interplay between the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and CPLR Art. 75, and raises some interesting questions for further review.
Background
According to documents filed in the Westchester action, Allied World is a New Hampshire insurance company licensed to issue surety bonds in New York. Bergassi is a New York surety bond broker that engaged in the business of soliciting surety business as an independent contractor on behalf of Allied World. Bergassi and Allied World had entered into a written agency agreement that contained an arbitration clause. Between 2013 and 2017, Allied World authorized Bergassi to issue surety bonds to a construction company operating in Manhattan. When the construction company and several of its co-owners were indicted for various crimes, the construction company defaulted on its projects and Allied World found itself on the hook for more than $15 million in losses under the surety bonds. Allied World then initiated arbitration proceedings against Bergassi in an attempt to hold Bergassi liable for its losses on the grounds that Bergassi knew of, but did not disclose to Allied World, links between the construction company and an individual who was eventually indicted for crimes related to the construction company's activities.
After Bergassi commenced a proceeding under New York's arbitration statute, CPLR Art. 75, for a stay of the arbitration, the court held oral argument on Jan. 15, 2020. At the hearing, the court agreed with counsel for Allied World that the CPLR, and not the FAA, governed the dispute because the case did not present any conflict between New York and federal law. Finding the agreement to arbitrate to be ambiguous, and the claims at issue in the arbitration to be "inextricably intertwined" with those at issue in other legal actions, the court granted Allied World's request to permanently stay the arbitration.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllJudgment of Partition and Sale Vacated for Failure To Comply With Heirs Act: This Week in Scott Mollen’s Realty Law Digest
Artificial Wisdom or Automated Folly? Practical Considerations for Arbitration Practitioners to Address the AI Conundrum
9 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1De-Mystifying the Ethics of the Attorney Transition Process, Part 2
- 2Being a Profession is Not Malarkey
- 3Bring NJ's 'Pretrial Opportunity Program' into the Open
- 4High-Speed Crash With Police Vehicle Nets $1.6 Million Settlement
- 5Embracing a ‘Stronger Together’ Mentality: Collaboration Best Practices for Attorneys
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250