UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

CASE NO.: ____________________________________ 

----------------------------------------------------------

MIAMI BEACH COMMUNITY 

DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, INC., 

aka MIAMI BEACH COMMUNITY 

DEVELOPMENT CORP., 

 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD’S, 

LONDON, 

 

Defendant. 

----------------------------------------------------------

X 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

X 

NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446 and 9 U.S.C. § 205, defendant, Certain 

Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, through its undersigned counsel, hereby removes to this Court 

the instant action from the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida, Miami-Dade 

County (the “State Court Action”) and, in support of the removal, states as follows: 

THE STATE COURT ACTION

Plaintiff, Miami Beach Community Development Corporation, Inc. (“MBCDC”) filed 

this action against defendant, Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London (“Lloyd’s”) in the Circuit 

Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida, Miami-Dade (Case No. 2020-006488-CA-01). 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), a copy of all process, pleadings, orders, and other papers and 

exhibits on file in the State Court Action is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 

On May 20, 2020, a copy of the Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial 

(“Complaint”) was served upon Lloyd’s through the Chief Financial Officer of the State of 

Case 1:20-cv-22530-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2020 Page 1 of 10
2

Florida. See Exhibit A, Notice of Service of Process. The Complaint seeks monetary damages 

for Lloyd’s alleged breach of the first-party property insurance program issued to MBCDC, 

effective from January 12, 2017 to January 12, 2018 and bearing account number 441676 (the 

“Policy”). A copy of the Policy is attached hereto as Exhibit B. Lloyd’s is a quota share 

participant in the Policy, with a 20.76% share. Indian Harbor Insurance Company (“Indian 

Harbor”), QBE Specialty Insurance Company (“QBE”), Steadfast Insurance Company 

(“Steadfast”), General Security Indemnity Company of Arizona (“General Security”), United 

Specialty Insurance Company (“USI”), Lexington Insurance Company (“Lexington”), Princeton 

Excess and Surplus Lines Insurance Company (“Princeton”), HDI Global Specialty SE, formerly 

known as International Insurance Company of Hannover SE (“HDI”) and Old Republic Union 

Insurance Company (“Old Republic”) are also quota share insurers and participate in the Policy 

in accordance with certain percentages. 

In the Complaint, MBCDC alleges that on or about September 10, 2017, “the insured 

properties were damaged due to Hurricane Irma.” See Exhibit A, Complaint at ¶ 11. MBCDC 

further asserts that Lloyd’s “has explicitly and/or constructively denied any payment and 

otherwise to afford coverage under any of the relevant policy provisions for the full damages 

sustained, falsely asserting the damage amount was under the policy deductible.” Id. at ¶ 15. In 

this regard, MBCDC alleges that Lloyd’s has “refused to pay the full amount due in benefits . . . 

in breach of its duties under the subject policy of insurance and Florida law.” Id. at ¶ 16. 

JURISDICTION

I. Federal Question

Removal is supported by federal question under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446. Lloyd’s 

asserts that there is a valid arbitration clause that falls under the Convention on the Recognition 

Case 1:20-cv-22530-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2020 Page 2 of 10
3

and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (also known as the “Convention”), and, thus, this 

Court has original jurisdiction pursuant to 9 U.S.C. §§ 202, 203 and 205. In removing this cause, 

Lloyd’s specifically preserves and gives notice of its right to seek to stay and to compel 

arbitration of this dispute, and Lloyd’s will be filing a dispositive motion seeking that relief 

subsequent to the removal of this case. 

The Policy sued upon provides for arbitration as follows: 

C. ARBITRATION CLAUSE: All matters in difference between the insured 

and the Companies (hereinafter referred to as “the parties”) in relation to 

this insurance, including its formation and validity, and whether arising 

during or after the period of this insurance, shall be referred to an 

Arbitration Tribunal in the manner hereinafter set out. 

* * * 

The Arbitration Tribunal shall have power to fix all procedural rules for 

the holding of the Arbitration including discretionary power to make 

orders as to any matters which it may consider proper in the circumstances 

of the case with regard to pleadings, discovery, inspection of documents, 

examination of witnesses and any other matter whatsoever relating to the 

conduct of the Arbitration and may receive and act upon such evidence 

whether oral or written strictly admissible or not as it shall in its discretion 

think fit. 

All costs of the Arbitration shall be in the discretion of the Arbitration 

Tribunal who may direct to and by whom and in what manner they shall 

be paid. 

The seat of the Arbitration shall be in New York and the Arbitration 

Tribunal shall apply the law of New York as the proper law of this 

insurance. 

* * * 

The award of the Arbitration Tribunal shall be in writing and binding upon 

the parties who covenant to carry out the same. If either of the parties 

Case 1:20-cv-22530-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2020 Page 3 of 10
4

should fail to carry out any award the other may apply for its enforcement 

to a court of competent jurisdiction in any territory in which the party in 

default is domiciled or has assets or carries on business. 

See Exhibit B, Policy, Section VII, ¶ C at p. 26 of 49 (emphasis added). 

As noted above, in this litigation, MBCDC is seeking monetary damages for Lloyd’s 

alleged breach of the Policy. However, per the Policy’s arbitration provision set forth above, any 

such “matter[] in difference” shall be referred to an Arbitration Tribunal. 

Although MBCDC elected to sue only Lloyd’s, all of the other insurers, specifically 

Indian Harbor, QBE, Steadfast, General Security, USI, Lexington, Princeton, HDI, and Old 

Republic similarly reserve the right to arbitrate and remove pursuant to the Convention. 

II. Propriety of Removal 

The Convention is an international treaty that guarantees citizens of signatory countries 

the right to enforce agreements to arbitrate disputes. As the Supreme Court explained, “[t]he 

goal of the [C]onvention, and the principal purpose underlying American adoption and 

implementation of it, was to encourage the recognition and enforcement of commercial 

arbitration agreements and international contracts and to unify the standard by which the 

agreements to arbitrate are observed and arbitral awards are enforced in the signatory countries.” 

Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co., 417 U.S. 506, 520 n. 15 (1974). Over one hundred countries have 

signed the Convention, including the United States, the United Kingdom of Great Britain, and 

Germany. In 1970, Congress enacted 9 U.S.C. §§ 201-208 (the “Convention Act”) “to establish 

procedures for our courts to implement the Convention.” McDermott Int'I, Inc. v. Lloyd's 

Underwriters of London, 944 F.2d 1199, 1208 (5th Cir. 1991). 

This cause is properly removed based on federal question because it relates to an 

arbitration agreement in writing falling under the Convention. See 9 U.S.C. § 205; Matabang v. 

Case 1:20-cv-22530-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2020 Page 4 of 10
5

Carnival Corp., 630 F. Supp. 2d 1361, 1363 (S.D. Fla. 2009) (“In Section 205 of the Convention 

Act, Congress authorized federal removal jurisdiction over cases relating to arbitration 

agreements ‘falling under the Convention’”); Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC v. Converteam 

SAS, 17-10944, 2018 WL 4122807, at *3 (11th Cir. Aug. 30, 2018) (Section 205 provides for 

broad removability of cases to federal court). See also 9 U.S.C. § 203 (a case covered by the 

Convention Act confers federal subject matter jurisdiction upon a district court because such a 

case is “deemed to arise under the laws and treaties of the United States.”). 

To this effect, the arbitration provision at issue falls under the Convention because it is a 

written contract arising out of a commercial legal relationship. Specifically, with regard to 

arbitration agreements falling under the Convention, Section 202 states as follows: 

An arbitration agreement or arbitral award arising out of a legal relationship, 

whether contractual or not, which is considered as commercial, including a 

transaction, contract, or agreement described in section 2 of this title, falls under 

the Convention. An agreement or award arising out of such a relationship which 

is entirely between citizens of the United States shall be deemed not to fall under 

the Convention unless that relationship involves property located abroad, 

envisages performance or enforcement abroad, or has some other reasonable 

relation with one or more foreign states. For the purpose of this section a 

corporation is a citizen of the United States if it is incorporated or has its principal 

place of business in the United States. 

See 9 U.S.C. § 202. 

Article II of the Convention further clarifies which arbitration agreements are subject to 

the Convention. Article II states, in pertinent part, as follows: 

1. Each Contracting State shall recognize an agreement in writing under 

which the parties undertake to submit to arbitration all or any differences 

which have arisen or which may arise between them in respect of a 

defined legal relationship, whether contractual or not, concerning a subject 

matter capable of settlement by arbitration. 

 

2. The term “agreement in writing” shall include an arbitral clause in a 

contract or an arbitration agreement, signed by the parties or contained in 

an exchange of letters or telegrams. 

Case 1:20-cv-22530-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2020 Page 5 of 10
6

See also Bautista v. Star Cruises, 396 F.3d 1289, 1295 (11th Cir. 2005) (citing the text of Article 

II of the Convention in connection with assessing whether the action was covered under the 

Convention). 

 This Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit have routinely 

acknowledged removal and jurisdiction on this basis. See Conklin v. OneBeacon Am. Ins. Co.,

2018 WL 3761047, at *3 (M.D. Fla. May 31, 2018) (“Defendants were well within their rights 

under the FAA to remove the case to this Court pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 205.”); Indus. Risk 

Insurers v. M.A.N. Gutehoffnungshutte GmbH, 141 F.3d 1434, 1441 (11th Cir. 1998) (federal 

subject matter jurisdiction granted where one of the parties to an arbitration agreement is 

domiciled or has its principal place of business outside of the United States). See also Antillean 

Marine Shipping Corp. v. Through Transp. Mut. Ins., Ltd., 02-22196-CIV., 2002 WL 32075793, 

at *3 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 31, 2002) (noting that removal was proper under 9 U.S.C. § 205 where the 

claims at issue must be referred to arbitration pursuant to the parties’ arbitration agreement). 

 Here, the requirements for removal based on federal question under the Convention are 

undoubtedly satisfied. The Policy and specifically the arbitration provision contained therein is 

the “agreement in writing” between the parties wherein they undertake to submit to arbitration 

“[a]ll matters in difference between the insured and the Companies.” Additionally, at least one 

party to the arbitration agreement is not a citizen of the United States. 

 Specifically, with regard to citizenship of the parties, defendant Lloyd’s, severally 

subscribed to Certificate No. AMR-57832 issued to MBCDC. In Underwriters at Lloyd's, 

London v. Osting-Schwinn, 613 F.3d 1079 (11th Cir. 2010), the Eleventh Circuit explained that 

Lloyd’s itself “is not an insurance company, but rather a British organization that provides 

infrastructure for the international insurance market.” Id. at 1083. It is thus not Lloyd’s but 

Case 1:20-cv-22530-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2020 Page 6 of 10
7

rather individual underwriters operating within the Lloyd’s infrastructure that underwrite 

policies. See Id. These underwriters are known as “Names” or “members,” and they can be 

individual persons or business entities of varying nationalities. Id. As underwriters, they assume 

the risk of insurance loss, and they often share the risk for any given policy severally by working 

together in a “syndicate.” Id. It has been further stated that syndicates are merely administrative 

entities; they are not incorporated, and they do not assume any risk on the policies they 

underwriter. Id. Rather, “the constituent Names assume individual percentages of underwriting 

risk” and “it is the individual Names, not the syndicate, who are directly liable in the event of 

loss, as if each Name had a contract with the insured.” Id. at 1084. The syndicates instead 

provide administrative convenience, and they “are generally organized by Managing Agents, 

which may or may not be corporations.” Id. at 1083. 

In this case, a portion of the Policy is subscribed to by Syndicate 510, one of the binding 

authorities for Certificate No. AMR-57832. Syndicate 510 is not a citizen or resident of Florida 

or any other state within the United States. Moreover, Syndicate 510 is an unincorporated 

association, the managing agent of which is Tokio Marine Kiln Syndicates Limited and the 

majority corporate member of which is Tokio Marine Kiln Group Limited. Tokio Marine Kiln 

Group Limited is registered in England and Wales, both of which are participating countries. 

Another quota share insurer subscribing to the Policy in the matter is HDI, a German 

corporation with its principal place of business in Hannover, Germany. Germany is also a 

participating country. Should the unnamed insurers subsequently be added to this action, 

because there would still be at least one party to the arbitration agreement among the unnamed 

insurers that is not a citizen of the United States, the arbitration agreement would similarly be 

governed by the Convention. 

Case 1:20-cv-22530-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2020 Page 7 of 10
8

 As such, the elements necessary for removal under the Convention Act have been 

satisfied, and removal of this action to this Court is appropriate. 

III. Timeliness 

This Notice of Removal is being timely filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) because it 

is filed within thirty (30) days after a copy of the pleading setting forth the claim for relief upon 

which this action is based was served upon Lloyd’s. See Exhibit A, Return of Service. 

Also, Section 205 of the Convention Act expressly states that the case may be removed 

on this basis “at any time before trial.” Sheinberg v. Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd., 269 F. Supp. 2d 

1349, 1352 (S.D. Fla. 2003); Acosta v. Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd., 303 F. Supp. 2d 1327, 1329 

(S.D. Fla. 2003). As such, removal is timely. 

IV. Notice to Others 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), a copy of this Notice of Removal is being served upon 

counsel for Plaintiff and a copy is being filed with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the Eleventh 

Judicial Circuit of Florida, Miami-Dade County. 

V. Conclusion 

 In sum, because the Policy contains a valid arbitration clause that falls under the 

Convention, this Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446 

and 9 U.S.C. § 202, 203 and 205. 

 The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida Court is the proper 

federal venue for this action. This action is properly removed to this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 

1441 because the Southern District of Florida embraces actions pending in Miami-Dade County, 

Florida, which is where the State Court Action is pending. Additionally, Lloyd’s is the sole 

Case 1:20-cv-22530-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2020 Page 8 of 10
9

defendant in this action and no previous application has been made for the relief requested 

herein. 

 WHEREFORE, Defendant, Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, respectfully 

removes this action from the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida, MiamiDade County. 

Dated: June 19, 2020 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 

 MOUND COTTON WOLLAN & GREENGRASS LLP 

By: s/ Brian M. McKell 

William D. Wilson, Esq. (Fla. Bar No. 71202) 

wwilson@moundcotton.com 

30A Vreeland Road 

Florham Park, NJ 07932 

Tel. (973) 494-0600 

Fax (973) 242-4244 

Brian M. McKell, Esq. (Fla. Bar No. 975753) 

bmckell@moundcotton.com 

Brooke O. Turetzky, Esq. (Fla. Bar No. 113049) 

bturetzky@moundcotton.com 

110 East Broward Blvd., Suite 1580 

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 

Tel. (954) 467-5800 

Fax (954) 467-5880 

Counsel for Defendant,

Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London 

 

Case 1:20-cv-22530-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2020 Page 9 of 10
10

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice of Removal by 

Defendant, Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, was served upon the following via email on 

the 19th day of June 2020: 

Alexander J. Perkins, Esq. 

perkins@perkinslawoffices.com 

Perkins Law Offices, P.A. 

14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 814 

Miami, Florida 33132 

Tel.: (305) 740-5297 

 Fax: (855) 740-5297 

Counsel for Plaintiff, 

 Miami Beach Community 

 Development Corporation, Inc. 

 s/ Brian M. McKell 

Brian M. McKell 

Case 1:20-cv-22530-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2020 Page 10 of 10