OPINION AND ORDER Petitioner Chicago Insurance Company (“Chicago”) filed this petition to compel arbitration and to stay a different arbitration pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. §1 et seq., against Respondents General Reinsurance Corporation and SCOR Reinsurance Company (collectively, the “Reinsurers”). (Dkt. No. 14.) In response, the Reinsurers have filed an Answer and Cross-Petition to stay arbitration and for declaratory relief. (Dkt. Nos. 31, 32.) For the reasons that follow, Chicago’s petition to compel arbitration and stay arbitration is denied, and the Reinsurers’ cross-petition to stay arbitration and for declaratory relief is granted. I. Background General Reinsurance Corporation and SCOR Reinsurance Company reinsured Chicago under a Second Layer Special Casualty Excess Agreement of Reinsurance (“Agreement”) from January 1, 1981, to December 31, 1982. (Dkt. No. 14 7.) As part of the Agreement, the Reinsurers agreed to cover a certain amount in excess of Chicago’s $1 million per occurrence retention. (Dkt. No. 14
9-10.) The Agreement defines “occurrence” as “an occurrence or accident or a series of occurrences or accidents arising out of or caused by one event.” (Dkt. No. 14 11.) The Agreement provided that disputes between the parties shall be arbitrated before three arbitrators. (Dkt. No. 14 12.) The Agreement also specified the process by which those arbitrators would be selected. (Dkt. No. 14 13.) It stated: “One Arbiter shall be chosen by [Chicago], the other by the Reinsurer[s], and an Umpire shall be chosen by the two Arbiters before they enter upon arbitration…” (Id.) Chicago, along with its affiliate, Fireman’s Fund Insurance, insured Thorpe, which was an asbestos distributor and installer. (Dkt. No. 14 15.) After Thorpe filed for bankruptcy, Chicago and Fireman’s Fund reached an agreement with Thorpe to settle all liability under the insurance policies. (Dkt. No. 14 17.) Chicago billed the Reinsurers for a portion of its share of the settlement payment. (Dkt. No. 14 17-18.) When the Reinsurers disputed the billings presented, the matter was submitted to arbitration (the “2017 Arbitration”). (Dkt. No. 14 19.) The 2017 Arbitration panel consisted of Chicago’s appointed arbitrator, the Reinsurers’ appointed arbitrator, and an umpire appointed by both party arbitrators. (Dkt. No. 14 20.) One of the central issues in the 2017 Arbitration was whether Chicago could bill its losses on the basis that each site where Thorpe operated constituted an “occurrence” under the Reinsurance Agreement. (Dkt. No. 14 21.) The panel rejected that billing scheme and issued a Final Award for the Reinsurers. (Dkt. No. 14 22.) The May 17, 2017 Final Award also stated that the 2017 arbitration panel “retain[ed] jurisdiction to resolve any dispute arising out of [the] Final Award.” (Dkt. No. 14 24; Dkt. No. 19-3 at 2.) On September 25, 2018, Chicago submitted a new billing to the Reinsurers. (Dkt. No. 14 26.) As part of that billing, Chicago stated that the “final award…set forth protocols for Chicago’s submission of claims to [the Reinsurers],” and that the “loss allocation was prepared in accordance with the Award’s protocols.” (Dkt. No. 31 41; Dkt. No. 31-2 at 5.) The Reinsurers rejected this new billing and alerted the 2017 Arbitration panel. (Dkt. No. 31
