### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 30177

ANT HONYT ODD P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee v. S TE AM S HI P M UTUAL UN DERW RI TI NG ASS OCIAT I ON ( BERM UDA) L I M I T ED D efen d a n t- A p p ell a n t

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i tedS tates D i stri ct C ou rt f ort he E as t er n D i st r i c tof Loui si ana

B ef ore G A R W O O D , W IE N E R , B E N AV ID E S , C i rcui tJu dg es . F O R T U N A T O P

. B E N AV ID E S , C i rcui tJu dg e: A ppel l antSt eam shi p M ut ualU nder w r i t i ng A sso c i at i on ( B er m uda) L i m i ted (“ St eam shi p” ) appeal s f r om t he di st r i c tc our t ’ s deni alof i t s m ot i on to
c o m pe lAppe l l e e Ant ho ny Tod d t o arbit r at e hi s c l ai m s ag ai ns t St e am s hi p. The d is tr ic t c o u r t p r e m is e dits d e n ia l e x c lu s iv e lyo n o u rp r e v io u s d e c is io n in Z i m m erm an v. In t ernati on al Compa n i es & Con sult i ng, I n c. , 10 7 F

. 3 d34 4 ( 5 th Ci r . 1 99 7)

. W e c o nc l ude t hatt he Supr e m e Cour t ’ s r e c e nto pi n i on i n Art hur A n d er se n L L Pv. Ca rlisle , r el eas ed af t erS t eam shi p f

i l ed t hi s appeal , has
e f fe c t i vel y o ve r r ul e d Zi m m e r m an . 1 2 9 S

. C t
. 1 8 9 6 ( 2 0 0 9 )

. A s ar e s u l t , we United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma rc h 18, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 09-30177 Document: 00511056253 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/18/2010N o. 09- 30177

D el t a Q u een ap pea l ed, bu t t h e L ou i si an a F ou rt h C ircu it C o u rtof 1 A pp eall argel y af

f i rm ed t h e j u dg m en tin favor of T odd

. H ow ever, i trem an ded t h e case t o t h e civi ldi st ri ctcourtf or r ecal cul ati on of

t h e sum du e T odd f

or w ages lo s t d u e to h is inju r y . S ee T od dv. D el t a Q u ee n S tea m boa tCo. , 15 So. 3d 107 , 1 1 3 -1 4 (L a . A p p . 4 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ), aff’ do n r e h ’g , 1 5 S o. 3d 107 (L a. A pp . 4th C i r. 2 0 0 9 ). Se c t i o n 22: 126 9 ar gua bly c r e at e s t w o di s t i nc t r i ght s o f ac t i o n, b ut

2 T od dh a s n ot sp ecif

i ed u n d er w h i ch h e is p roce ed i n g a ga i n st S tea m sh i p . F i rst, sect i on 22: 126 9(A) a utho r i z e s a n inj ur e d indivi dua lt opr oceed aga i n stan i n surer af t e rhe o rs he ha s o bt ai ne d a n e xe c ut o r y j udg m e nta ga i ns ta n i n s o lve nti ns ur e d. S e c o n d , se c tio n 2 2 :1 2 6 9 (B ) a llo w s a n inju r e din d iv id u a lt o p r o c e e dd ir e c tly aga i n stan i n solven t t ort feasor’ s i n surer, even w i t h ou ta pri or j u dg m en tagainst t h e i n sured tort feasor. 2 reverse t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s d i s m i ssalof Steam shi p’ s m ot i on an d rem an d thi s c ase f or f u rth er proc ee d in g s to d e te rm in e w h e th e r T o d dca n b e co m p e ll e dto a rb itra te. I. E a r lyin 2 0 0 0 , T o d dw a s inju r e dw h ile s e r v in ga s ach e f o n b o a r dth e M /V A M E R IC A N Q U E E N , a re p l ic a s tea m b oa t ow n ed an dop era tedbythe D elt a Q u e e n S te a m b oa t C om p a n y(“D e lta Q u e e n ”). W h e n th e inju r yo c c u r r e d , th e s h ip
w as c r ui si ng al ong t he M i ssissi ppiR iveri n t he s t at e o f Loui si ana. I n 2001, D e l t a Q ue e n f

i l e d f o rb ank r upt c y pr o t e c t i o n, b utTo dd w on a ppr o va lf r o m t he ba nkr upt c y c o ur tt o pr o c e e d wi t h a s ui t ag ai ns t D e l t a Q ue e n. Eve nt uall y, To dd
w on a jud gm en t ag a i n st D elt a Q u ee n i n L ou i sian a s tate cou rt in 2 0 0 7 , bu t D elt a Q u ee n h a s ye t t o sa ti sfy th i s j u d gm en t. 1 A tt h e t i m e of

T odd ’ s i nj u ry, Steam sh ip in sured D el t a Q u een against l i a b i l i ty for i nj u ri es to it s em p l oy ee s. In 20 0 8 , T od df i l ed su i t i n L ou i sian a state
cou rt ag a i n st S tea m sh i p , attem p ti n g to co lle ct on h i s j u d gm en t ag a i n st D elt a Q u een . T odd ’ s s u i ti s authori zed byL ou i si an a’ s “ di rectact i on ” st atute, w h i ch al l ow s i nj u red i n di vi du al s t o proceed di rect l y aga i n stinsurers w h en an i n sured to r tfe a s o ris in s o lv e n t. S ee L a. R ev. S t at. A n n . § 22: 126 9 ( 200 9)

. T odd rai sed 2 fou r cau ses of a cti on ag a i n st S tea m sh i p , ass ertingtha t (i) S tea m sh i p i s l i a b l e to Case: 09-30177 Document: 00511056253 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/18/2010N o. 09- 30177

T h e clau se p rov i d es th a t: 3 I f a ny dif fe r e nc e o rdi s put e s halla r i s e b e t w e e n aM em bera nd t he C l u b concerning .

. . t h e i n suran ce af f orded by t h e C l u b u n der t h ese R u les , o r an y am ou n tdu e f rom t h e C l u b to t h e M em ber, such dif fe r e nc e o rdi s put e s halli n t he f i r s ti ns t anc e b e r e fe r r e d t o a nd adj udi c at e d b y t he D i r e c t o r s . . . . I f t he M e m be rdoe s nota c c e ptt he deci si on of

t h e D i rect ors t h e di f ference or di spu t e shallbe ref erred t o t h e arbi t rat i on of t w o arbi t rat ors, one to be ap poi n t ed byeach of th e p a r tie s , inL o n d o n . . . . 3 T odd forh i s i nj u ri es on board the M /VA M E R IC A N Q U E E N , l ess an y ded u ct ibl e, (i i) S t eam shi p fai l ed t o n egoti ate w i t h T odd i n good fai t h , (i ii) Steam shi p fai l ed t o m a k e r e a s o n a b l e e ffo r t s to s e t t le w it h T o d d , a n d(iv) S t e a m s h ip ’s “m e m b e r s ”— i.e ., o th e re n tit ie s in su redbyS tea m sh i p — sh ou l dbede cl a redj oin tly ands e ve r al l y l i ab l e t o To dd. In response, S t eam shi p rem ovedt h i s s u i tt o federaldi st ri ctcourt
. I tt h en a sk ed the distri ct cou rt to stay th e pro cee d i n gs a n dto com p el T od dto arb i trate h i s c l ai m s pu rsuan tt o t h e C on ven t i on on the R ecognit i o n a n d E n f orcem en tof Fo r e i g n Arb i t r a lAwar d s (t he “ N e w Yo r k Co nv e nt i o n” ) , J un e 1 0 , 1 9 5 8 , 2 1 U. S. T. 251 7, 330 U

. N

. T

. S

. 38. Steam shi p argu ed that si n ce al lof T odd ’ s ca u se s of
ac t i on der ive f

r om D el t a Q ueen’ s pol i c y w i t h Ste am shi p, he s houl d be bound by th e clau se in th e p oli cyreq u i ri n g D elt a Q u ee nto a rb i trate ce rtain disp u tes w i th S t eam shi p. H ow ever, t h e d istr ict courtrul ed that i tw ou l d n otcom pel

3
arbit r at i o n, a s i tf

o und t hato urde c i s i o n i n Zi m m e r m an fo r e c lo s e dre fe r r in gth is
c as e t o a rbi t r at i o n. I nde e d, t he c o ur tf o und Zi m m e r m an t o b e s o di spo sit ive t hat i tdec i ded nott o w r i t e a n opi ni on e xpl ai ni ng i t s dec i si on, as i tc onc l u d ed t hat
w ritin gan ythi n g at al lw ou l d be m erely “ w asti n g t rees. ” Steam shi p h as now ap pea l ed the di st ri ctcourt ’ s den i al of i t s m ot i on t o st ay thi s c ase an d com pel
arbit r at i o n. II. Case: 09-30177 Document: 00511056253 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/18/2010N o. 09- 30177

U n der t h e FAA , di st ri ct cou rts m ay on l y ref er cases t o arbi t rat i on 4 w ith in th e iro w n d is tr ic t. S ee 9 U

. S

. C

. § 4 (“ T h e hea ri n g an d proceedi n gs, un der such agree m e n t, sh al lbe w i t h i n t h e di st ri cti n w h i ch the peti t i on f or an order d ir e c tin gsu ch a rb itra tion is filed .”)

. H o w e v e r, th e N e w Y o rk C o n v e n tio n ’s i m pl em en t i n g l egi sl ati on “ au t h ori zes di st ri ctcourt s t o order pa rt i es t o proceed w i th a C o n ve n ti on arb i tration ev en ou tsi d e th e U n i tedS tates.” Sedco , I nc. v. Pet roleos Mexi can os Mexi can Nat’ lO i lCo. , 7 6 7 F .2d 1 1 4 0 , 1 1 4 6 (5t h C ir. 1 9 8 5 ). 4 W e h a v e a p p e l l a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e rt h i s c a s e u n d e r9 U. S

. C. § § 1 6 ( a ) ( 1 ) (A)
an d 16 ( a) ( 1) ( C ) , w h i ch al l ow us t o hea r i n t erl ocutory appea ls f rom orders

“ r e f us i ng a s t ayo f

a ny ac t i o n und e r” t he Fe de r alAr bit r at i o n Ac t(“ FAA” ) a nd orders “ den yi n g an app l i cat i on un d e r [th e N ew Y ork C on ven t i on ] t o com pel
a rb i tration

. ” S eeCa rlisle , 129 S. C t
. at 1900 ( “ [A] ny l i t i gant w ho as ks f ora s t ay und er[t he FAA] i s ent i t l ed t o a n i m m edi at e a ppealf r om d en i a lof

t hat
m ot i on
— regardl ess of w h et h er t h e l i t i gan t i s i n factel i gibl e f or a s t ay. ” )

. W h en
w e exerci se t h i s j u ri sdi ct i on , w e revi ew den i al s of m ot i on s t o com pelarbi t rat i on d e n o v o . Fle e t w o o dE n t e rs . , In c . v . G a s k a mp , 280 F

. 3d 106 9, 107 3 ( 5th C i r. 2 0 0 2 ). B e fo r e w e b e g in o u ra n a ly s is , w e p r o v id e s o m e b r i e f b a c k g r o u n dto h e lp ori en tt h e reader w i t h res pect t o t h e rel ati on ship b e tw e en t h e N ew Y ork Co n v e n t i o n a n dt h e p r i m a r yd o m e s t i c s o u r c e o f fe d e r a la rb i t r a t i o n l a w, t h e FAA, 9 U

. S

. C

. §§ 1- 16 (2006). I n t h i s c ase, Steam shi p m u stseek rel i ef at l east i n part
u n d er th e N ew Y ork C on ve n ti on , a s S tea m sh i p see k s to com p el T od dto arb i trate
ou t si de the U n i t ed S t ates. H ow ever, t h e F AA h as som e app l i cat i on t o t h i s c ase. 4 T h e C on ven t i on ’ s i m pl em en t i n g l egi sl ati on i n corporat es t h e en t i re F AA , at l east to th e e x te n t th a t th e FAA d o e s n o t co n flic t w ith th e C o n v e n tio n . S ee 9 U. S

. C. § 2 08; Yu suf A h m ed Algha n i m & S on s v. T oys “ R ” U s, I n c. , 126 F. 3d 15, 20 ( 2d Ci r . 1 99 7) ( e xp l ai ni ng t hat“ t he FAAa nd t he C on ven t i o n ha ve ‘ o ve r l ap pi ng c ove r age’t o t he e xt entt hatt hey do notc onf l i c t” ( quoti ng Ber

ge s e n v . Jo s e

ph Mu l le rCor

p. , 710 F

. 2d 928 , 934 ( 2d C i r. 198 3) )

. For exam pl e, t h e C on ven t i on Case: 09-30177 Document: 00511056253 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/18/2010N o. 09- 30177

5 an d it s i m pl em en t i n g l egi sl ati on do not exp l i ci t l y au t h ori ze sta y in gl i t i gati on pen di n g arbi t rat i on , an d thu s part i es w h ose arbi t rat i on agreem en t s fal lun der th e C o n v e n tio nh a v e h a dto s e e k a u t h o r i t yfo rs ta y s u n d e r9 U .S .C . § 3 , a p r o v is io n o f th e d o m e s tic FAA

. See, e . g. , DiMe r c ur i o v . Sp he r eDr a k eI ns . , PLC , 202 F. 3d 71, 77- 78 ( 1s tC i r . 2000) ;Ene rgyTr ans p. , Lt d. v . M

. V. San Se ba s t i an , 3 4 8 F

. S u p p . 2 d1 8 6 , 2 0 1 (S .D .N .Y

. 2 0 0 4 ). W i t h t h i s prol ogu e com pl et e, w e now t u rn t o t h e i ssues rai sed by thi s c ase. As e xp l ai ne d a bo ve , t he di s t r i c tc o ur tf o und t hato urde c i si o n i n Zi m m e r m an fo r e c lo s e dr u li n gin fa v o ro f S t e a m s h ip , a n dc o n s e q u e n t lyitd e n ie dS t e a m s h ip ’s
m o t i o n t o c o m pe l arbit r at i o n w i t ho ut aut ho r i ng an o pi ni o n. H o w e ve r , a f t e rt he di strict co u rt d e n ied S te a m sh ip ’ s m o tion , th e S u p re m e C o u rt r e lea sed it s opi n i on i n Ca rlisle

. W e con cl u d e th a t Carl i sle ef fect ivel y overrul es Zi m m e r m an , at l east i n sofar as Zi m m e r m an w ou l d ap pl y in thi s c ase t o preven tSteam shi p f rom com p ell i n g T od dto arb i trate h i s cl a i m s. A d d i ti on a l l y, w e fi n dtha t Carl i sle al so e f fe c t ive l y o ve r r ul e s o ur e ar l i e rde c i s i o n i n In reT albot tB ig F

oot, I n c. , w h ic h is fa c t u a l l yi n d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e f r o m Zi m m e r m an . 8 8 7 F. 2 d 6 1 1 ( 5 t h Ci r . 1 9 8 9 )

. As a resul t , si n ce w e ha ve n otben ef i t t ed f rom a f u l lai ri n g bel ow of

t h e i ssues presented byt h i s c ase, w e rem an d T odd ’ s act i on t o th e d istri ctcourtf or a det er m i nat i on o f

w het herTodd c an be c om pel l ed t o a rbi t r at e no w t hat Zi m m e r m an h as been d i spl aced. N evert h el ess, w e w ri t e to p rovi de gu i da n ce f or th e d i stri ct cou rt on rem a n d a n d to exp l a i n w h y w e con cl u d e th a t Ca rlisle i n vali da t es Zi m m e r m an a nd B ig F oot
.A. I n Zi m m e r m an a nd B ig F oot , inju r e ds e a m e n file dcla im s a g a in s t t h e ir
em plo y e rs’f

orei gn i n surers un der L ou i si an a’ s di rectact i on st atute. Zi m m e r m an , 1 0 7 F .3 da t 3 4 5 ; B ig F oot , 88 7 F. 2da t6 12
. As e xp l ai ne d a bo ve , t he di rectact i on st atute al l ow s i nj u red i n divi du al s t o proceed di rect l y aga i n st to r tfe a s o r s ’in s u r e r s in ce r ta in cir c u m s ta n c e s . S ee La. R ev. St at
. A nn. § 22: 1269. Case: 09-30177 Document: 00511056253 Page: 5 Date Filed: 03/18/2010N o. 09- 30177

T h e onl y ref

erence t o t h e C o n v e n tion in ei t h er c ase i s i n a bri ef 5 f o o t no t e i n B ig F

oot
. W e note d t hat“ [t] he c o nve nt i o n o n t he r e c o gnit i o n a nd e n for ce m e n t of f

o re ign a rb itra l a w a rd s m a yh a v e so m e a p p li ca tion [to th is ca se ], b u t t h a t c o n v e n tio n s im p lya d o p ts th e p r o v is io n s o f th e F e d e r a l A rb itr a tio n A c t.” 88 7 F. 2d at 61 4 n. 3. A s bo t h Zi m m e r m an and B igF o o t i nvolved f

or ei gn i n su rers , i t i s p rob a b le t h a t t h e C on ve n ti on didh a ve som e a p p l i ca ti on i n bo th c a s e s . S ee L im v . Offs h ore S peci alty F

ab ri cat ors, I

n c. , 40 4 F

. 3 d89 8 , 90 3 ( 5 th C i r. 200 5) ( exp l ai n i n g t h at “ [t] h e C on vent i o n a ppli es t o i n t erna t i on alarbi t rat i on c l ause s w hen, ” am ong o t herfac t or s, “ ‘ a par t y t o t h e a gr ee m enti s notan A m er i c an c i t i ze n’” ( quot i ng Fr a n c i s c o v . S t o l tA c h i e v e me n tMT, 293 F. 3d 270, 2 7 2 -7 3 (5 th C ir

. 2 0 0 2 )). H o w e v e r , w e lik e ly d idn o t fo c u s o n th e C o n v e n tio n in ei t h er case b ecau se the f orei gn insurers w ere n otseek i n g t o com pelarbi t rat i on w i t h t he dir e c ta c t i o n pl ai nt i f fs , b utr at he rt o s t ayt he i rl awsuit s unt i lt he i n surer had com pl et ed arbi t rat i on w i t h it s i n sured. A s expl ai n ed ab ove, t h ere i s no e xp l i c i t pr o vi s i o n aut ho r i z i ng s t ay s i n t he Conv e nt i o n o ri t s i m pl e m e nt i ng l egi sl ati on ; consequ en t l y, pa rt i es h ave had t o t u rn t o 9 U

. S

. C

. § 3, a provi si on of th e d o m e stic FAA , forsu ch re li e f.

I n B ig F

oot , w e l ef

t ope n t he ques t i on of w het he r th e i n su rerw as 6 en t i t l ed to a dis cret i on ary st ay, as opposed t o a m an da t ory stay p u rsuan tto § 3 of t he FAA

. 887 F. 2d at614. 6 In resp on se to th e d i rect a cti on s, th e i n su rers s ou gh t to stayth e sea m en ’ s su i ts unt i lt he i ns ur e r s ha d e xe r c i s e d t he i r contrac t ualr i ghtt o a rbit r at e w i t h t he
s e a m e n ’ s e m p lo y e r s . Zi m m e r m an , 1 0 7 F .3 da t 3 4 5 ; B ig F oot , 887 F

. 2 d at612. I n b o t h c as e s , w e e nga ge d i n an ana l ys i s t hat l ar ge l y f o c us e d o n t he FAA , a nd 5
w e f ou n d that a st ay w as i n ap propri ate. 6 The fac t s be f

o r e us i n t hi s c as e ar e s o m e w hat dif fe r e nt
. U n l i ke Zi m m e r m an and B ig F oot , a for ei gn insurer i s n otm erely seeki n g t o st ay a d i rect
ac t i o n pl ai nt i f

f ’ s l awsuitunt i lt he c o nc l u si on of a rbit r at i o n wi t h i t s i ns ur e d. Inst ead , Steam shi p i s s eeking to co m pela di rectact i on pl ai n t i f f t o arbi t rat e. Anot he rdi s t i nc t i o n i s t hatunl i ke t he dir e c ta c t i o n pl ai nt i f fs i n B igFo o t and Zi m m e r m an , T o d dh a s a lr e a d y w o n aj udg m e nta ga i ns tSt e am s hi p’ s i ns ur e d a nd is s u in gS te a m s h ip to co lle c t o n it. D e s p ite th e s e d iffe r e n c e s , h o w e v e r , if Zi m m e r m an and B igF o o t w e r e s till v a lid , th e irre a s o n in gw o u lds w e e p b r o a d ly Case: 09-30177 Document: 00511056253 Page: 6 Date Filed: 03/18/2010N o. 09- 30177

Si m i l ar l y, i n Big Foot , w e h e ld th a tt h e di rectact i on pl ai n t i f fs’ 7 a c ti o n s s h o u ldn o t b e s ta y e db e c a u s e th e p la in tiffs w e r e “n o t p a r tie s ” t o th e ir e m p lo y e r ’ s in s u r a n c e p o lic y . 8 8 7 F .2 da t 6 1 4
. 7 e n o u g h t o r u le o u t a rb itr a tio n u n d e rth e fa c ts o f th is ca s e . S p e c ific a lly , in Zi m m e r m an , w e d e t e r m i n e dt h a ts t a y i n ga n inj u r e dw o r k e r ’s d ir e c t a c tio nw o u ld be i n ap propri ate because: T h e F AAdo es n ot req u i re arb i tration u n l ess th e p a rti es to a disp u te have agr ee d to ref

eri tt o a rbi t r at i on. Li kew i se , t he m andat or y s t ay pr o v ision of t h e FAAdoes not app l y t o t h ose w h o are not c o n t r a c t u a l l yb o u n db y t h e a rb i t r a t i o n a g r e e m e n t
. Th u s , t h e FAA, t he s o ur c e o f

t he fe de r alpo l i c y fav o r i n g arbit r at i o n, ha s no appl i c at i on t o r equi r e di r ec t ac t i on pl ai nt i f fs t o a rbi t r at e o rt o s t ay t he i rl awsuit s dur i ng arbit r at i o n. 1 0 7 F .3d a t 3 4 6 (cita tion s o m itted ). If Zi m m e r m an w er e c or r ec tt hatt he f ede r al 7 pol i cy favori n ga rb it rat i on ha s no ap pl i cat i on t o di rectact i on pl ai n t i f fs, t h en S t eam shi p could not c om pelT odd t o arbi t rat e. I n Ca rlisle , h o w e v e r , th e S u p r e m e C o u r t r eje c te dth e re a s o n in gin Zi m m e r m an and B ig F oot , concl u di n g i n st eadt h at non si gn ator i es t o arbi t rat i on a gr ee m en ts (s u c h a s direct action plain tiffs) m a y so m eti m es b e com p ell ed to
a rb i trate. I tc l ar i f

i ed t hatw hi l e t he FAA“ c r eat es s ubst ant ive fede r all aw regardi n g th e enfo rc e a b il ityof a rb itra tion a g re e m e n ts, .
. . b a ck groun d p rin cipl es of st ate c on t ractl aw ” control t h e i n t erpret ati on of t h e scope of such agreem en t s,

“ i nc l u di n g t h e q ue s t i o n o f w ho i s b o und byt he m . ” 1 29 S. Ct

. a t1 90 1- 02
. The S u p r e me C o u r tt h e n e x p l a i n e dt h a t“ ‘ t r a d i t i o n a lp r i n c i p l e s ’o f s t a t e l a w a l l o w a c ont r ac tt o b e e nf

or c ed byoragains t n on par t i es t o t he c ont r ac tt hro ugh

‘ assum pti on , pi erci n g t h e cor porate vei l , al t er ego, i n corporat i on b y ref erence, th i rd -pa rty ben efi ci a ry th eo ri es, w a ive r a n destop p el. ’” Id

. at1902 ( quot i ng 21 R . L o r d , Will isto n on Co n tra cts § 5 7 :1 9 (4 th e d . 2 0 0 1 )). A s s u c h , Ca rlisle
o ve r r ul e s o urde t e rm i n at i o n i n Zi m m e r m an and B igF o o t t h at di rectact i on Case: 09-30177 Document: 00511056253 Page: 7 Date Filed: 03/18/2010N o. 09- 30177

S i n c ew e de c i de d Zi m m e r m an , a n u m b er of F i ft h C i rcuitpanel s have 8 r e c o g n iz e dth a t n o n s ig n a to r ie s m a yb e b o u n dto a rb itr a te in ce r ta in ci rcum st an ces. See, e . g. , Bri dasS. A. P. I

. C. v . Tur km e ni s t an , 345 F. 3d 347, 355- 56 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 3) (l i s t i ng pr i n ci pl es o f c o nt r ac ta nd a ge nc y l aw t hatm ayb i nd n o n s ig n a to r ie s to a rb itr a te ); Fleet w ood , 2 8 0 F .3d a t 1 0 7 6 (sa m e ). H o w e v e r, “[a]s a gen eralrul e, one p an elm ay n otoverrul e t h e deci si on of a pri or pan el , ri gh tor w r o n g , inth e a b s e n c e o f a n in te r v e n in gco n tr a r yo rs u p e r s e d in gd e c is io n b yth is cou rt sit ti n g en b a n c or by th e U n i ted S tates S u p rem e C ou rt. ” B ill iot v

. P u ck ett , 13 5 F. 3d3 11 , 3 16 ( 5th C i r. 1 998)

. W hi l e no ne o f o urpr e vi o us pa ne lde c i s i o ns c o ul d ha ve o ve r r ul e d Zi m m e r m an and B ig F oot , t h e Su prem e C ou rt ’ s deci si on i n Carl i sle h as.

Forexam pl e, int he y e ar s s i nc e w e de c i de d Zi m m e r m an and B ig 9 F oot , w e ha ve h el d t h at t h e M cC arran - F erguson A ct al l ow s s t ate r egu l ati on of in s u r a n c e to “r e v e r s e p r e e m p t” th e FAA

. SeeAm

. B ankers I ns. Co. of

Fla. v. I nm an , 436 F. 3d 490, 492 ( 5t h C i r . 2006)

. H ow eve r , even m or e re c ent l y, w e have h el d that st ate i n suran ce l aw can n ot reverse preem pt t h e N ew Y ork C on ven t i on a n d i ts i m p l em en ti n g l eg i slati o n . S eeS afety Na t’l Ca s. Co rp . v . Cer ta in Un d erw ri t ersatL loyd ’ s, L on d on , 5 8 7 F .3d 7 1 4 , 7 1 7 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 9 ) ( e n b a n c). Compa re C e nt ur

yI nde m . Co. v . Ce r t ai n Unde r w r i t e rs at Ll oyd ’ s, 10 L on d on , 584 F

. 3d 5 13, 5 20 n . 5, 534

- 35 & n. 18 (3d C i r. 200 9) (i n C on ven t i on case, ref erri n g t o contr actl aw pri n ci pl es t o deter m i n e w h et h er n o n sig n ator y m u st a rb itra te ), andSar hankG r o up v . O r ac leCor p. , 404 F

. 3d 657 , 659 , 662 ( 2d C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) (s a m e ), an dI n t ’lPap er Co. v. S chw ab edis sen Maschinen & A n lag en G M BH, 2 0 6 F .3 d4 1 1 , 4 1 7 (4 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) (s a m e ), w ith Ca rlisle , 1 2 9 S. C t
. at 1 8 9 9 , 19 0 2 (i n do m estic FAAcas e, referrin g to co n tract l a w pr i n ci p l es to d eterm i n e w h eth er n on sign a torym u st arb i trat e ), a n dFleet w ood , 280 F. 3d at 1 0 7 3 -7 4 ( sa m e ). 8 p l a i n tiffs n ee dn ev er a rb i trate u n d er fede ra ll a w be ca u se th eyare n ot p a rti es to t h e i n suran ce pol i ci es c reat i n g an obl i gati on t o arbi t rat e. 8 T h at s ai d, o nem i ghtq ue s t i o n w h et h er Zi m m e r m an , B ig F oot , a nd Ca rlisle are rel evan ta ta l li n t h i s c ase, si n ce t h ey al lpri m ari l y f ocus on the F AAan d n ot th e N e w Y o r k C o n v e n tio n . It is tr u e th a t th e C o n v e n tio n a n dth e FAAd iffe rin certain i m port a n t resp ects. H ow ev er, i n bo th FAAan dC on ve n ti on cas es, cou rts 9 h a ve l a rg ely reli ed on th e sa m e com m on law co n tract a n da ge n cyp ri n ci p l es to de t e r m i ne w he t he rno ns i gna t o r i e s m us ta rbit r at e , a nd n o t l aw derivedf rom 10 Case: 09-30177 Document: 00511056253 Page: 8 Date Filed: 03/18/2010N o. 09- 30177

T h e C on ven t i on does ha ve som e beari n g on w h et h er n on si gn ator i es 11 c an be c om pel l ed t o arb i t r at e, as i tonl y appl i es w hen “ an agr ee m enti n w r i t i ng” p r o v id e s ab a s i s fo ra rb itr a tio n . S ee N ew York Convent i on ar t
. I I , §§ 1- 2. H ow ever, w e ha ve previ ou sl y h el d that an a rbi t rat i on cl au se in a contr act pr o vi de s a n “ ag r e e m e nti n wri t i ng” t hats at i s f i e s t he Conv e nt i o n, ev e n w he n t he p a rty b ein g force dto arb i trate h a s n o t s ig n ed the con tract. SeeSph e r eD r ake Ins. PL Cv. Mari n e Tow i ng, I n c. , 16 F. 3d 666, 669- 70 ( 5t h C i r . 1994)

. Si m i l ar l y, o t he rc o ur t s ha ve he l d t hatas l o ng as t he r e i s s o m e “ ag r e e m e nti n writ i ng, ” t he C o n v e n tio n m a yre q u ir e an o n s ig n a to r yto a rb itr a te
. S ee Int ’lPap er , 206 F. 3d a t 4 1 8 n .7 ; I

nt e r e st ed Un d erw r i t e rs atLloy d’ s v . M /T San Se ba s t i an , 5 0 8 F. S u p p . 2 d 1 2 4 3 , 1 2 5 0 -5 1 (N .D

. G a . 2 0 0 7 ). In th is r e s p e c t, th e C o n v e n t i o n is m uc h l i ke t he FAA ; i n Ca rlisle , t h e Su prem e C ou rtheld th a t “ [i] f a w ri t t en a rb i tration pr ov i sion i s m a d e en forcea b l e a ga i n st . .
. a th i rdpa rty u n d er sta te c o n tr a c t la w , th e [FAA ’ s ] te r m s a r e fu lfille d .” 1 2 9 S .C t. a t 1 9 0 2
. 9 st at ut e o rt r eat y. C o n s e q u e n tly , Carl i sle an d other cases di scussi n g w h et h er 11
n o n s ig n a to r ie s ca n b e co m p e lle dto a rb itr a te u n d e rth e FAAa r e re le v a n t fo rth is
c a s e g o v e r n e db yth e N e w Y o r k C o n v e n tio n . B. I n Zi m m e r m an , i n ad d i ti on t o h o ld in g th a t t h e F AAdo es n ot ap p l y to
n on sign a tories, w e a l so sta tedtha t direct acti on plain tiffs c a n n ot be f orce dto arbi t rat e as t h i rd pa rt y ben ef i ci ari es of

insuran ce contract s becau se “t h e di rect act i on st atute gr an t s a personal i nj u ry cl ai m an ta ri gh tof di rectact i on against t he t o r t fe as o r ’ s i ns ur e ro n t he po l i c y r e ga r dl e s s o f a ny pr o vi s i o n i n t he po l i cy fo rb id d in ga n im m e d ia te d ir e c t a c tio n .” 1 0 7 F .3 d a t 3 4 6
. In th is ca s e , S te a m s h ip h as a sser t ed t h at T odd m u sta rbi t rat e h i s cl ai m s because, am on g ot h er r eason s, h e is p u r p o r te d lyath ir dp a r tyb e n e fic ia r yo f D e lta Q u e e n ’ s in s u r a n c e p o lic y . W e c o n c lu d e th a t o n re m a n d , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t is n o t b o u n db yo u rs ta te m e n t in Zi m m e r m an t h at di rectact i on pl ai n t i f fs c an n otbe requir ed to arbi t rat e as t h i rd pa rt y ben ef

i ci ari es, as t h i s c on cl u sio n w as necessari l y conti n gen ton ou r now d i scre d i tedv ie w th a t f ed era larb i tration l a w h a s n o a p p l i ca ti on to
n on si gn ator i es. Case: 09-30177 Document: 00511056253 Page: 9 Date Filed: 03/18/2010N o. 09- 30177

T h e S u p rem e C ou rt ha s ex p l a i n ed tha t 12 A n agr ee m entt o a rbi t r at e i s val i d, i r r evo c abl e, and enf or c eabl e, as a m att er of

federall aw , save up on such grou n ds as ex istat l aw or i n equ i t y f

or t h e revocati on of an y contract
. Th u s s t ate l aw , w h et h er of l eg i slative or j u d i c ia l o ri gin , i s ap p l i ca b l e if tha t l a w aro se to go ve r n i s s ue s c o n c e r n i n g t h e v a l i d i t y , r e v o c a b i l i t y, a nd enf or c eabil i t y o f

con tr ac t s gener al l y. [ H ow eve r , a] s t at e- l aw p ri n ci p l e th a t t a k es it s m ea n i n g p r e c isely from the fa ct t h a t a co n tra ct to a rb itra te is a t issu e d o e s n o t co m p o rt w ith [th e FAA]. Pe r r yv . Tho m as , 482 U

. S

. 483 , 492 n. 9 ( 198 7) (ci t ati on s and i n t erna lqu ot ati on m ar ks om i t t ed)

. Li ke t he FAA , t he C onvent i on al so c r eat es “a b od y of f ede r al s u b s ta n tiv e la w o f a rb itr a b ility ,” d is p la c in g in c o n s is te n t st a te la w . Int ’lPap er , 206 F. 3d at417 n. 4 (qu oti ng MosesH

. Con e Mem ’lHosp. v. Merc u ry Con st r. Cor p. , 4 6 0 U .S

. 1 , 2 4 (19 8 3 )).

Si nce Loui si ana’ s d i r e c t a c t i o n s t a t ut e i s a r g ua bl y a st at e l aw 13 r egul at i ng i nsur ance , t he M c C ar r an- Fergus on A c tm ay all ow i tt o t r um p fede r al l aw i n c as e s go ve r ne d s o l e l y by t he do m e s t i c FAA a nd no t t he N e w Y ork C o n v e n tio n . S e eS afe ty Na t’l , 587 F. 3d at720 n. 21; I nm an , 4 3 6 F .3 da t 4 9 2
. 10 I n Zi m m e r m an , w hen w e s t at ed t hatdi r ec t ac t i on pl ai nt i f fs c oul d notbe
com pel l ed t o a rbi t rat e a s thi rd pa rt y ben ef i ci ari es, w e j u st i f

i ed thi s c on cl u si on b y fi n d i n g t h a t L o u i sian a l a w all ow s th em to pro cee dw i th ou t su b m i tti n g to
a rb i tration

. 10 7 F

. 3 dat 34 6 ( ex p l a i n i n g th a t “th e d i rect a cti on sta tu te gra n ts
a persona l i nj u ry cl ai m an t a ri gh t of di rect act i on . . . regardl ess of an y provi si on i n t he po l i c y f

o rbi ddi ng an i m m e di at e dir e c t ac t i o n” )

. H o w e ve r , i f w e ha d f

o und t he FAAa ppli c ab l e i n Zi m m e r m an , w e w ou l d h a v e ha d to en gag e i n a deep er an al ysi s: A l t h ou gh st ate contract l aw pri n ci pl es control w h et h er non si gn ator i es c a n b e b o u n dto a rb itr a te , se e Ca rlisle , 1 2 9 S

. C t. a t 1 9 0 1 -0 2 , s ta te la w u s u a lly
ca n n o t i nval i dat e a n ot her w i se enforce a b l e a gr ee m ents i m pl y be c ause i ti s an agreem en tt o arbi t rat e. C on sequ en t l y, w e w ou l d h ave h ad to a dd ress w h et h er 12 L o u is ia n a ’ s d ir e c t a c tio n s t a tu te ca n p e r m is s ib lyre n d e rn o n a rb itr a b le acla im t h at c ou l d p ossibl y be arbi t rabl e ot h erw i se un der st ate c on t ractl aw pri n ci pl es. 13 O f c ou r s e , a t t he t i m e , we d i d no t ne e d t o e ng a g e i n t hi s a na l y s i s , a s we had Case: 09-30177 Document: 00511056253 Page: 10 Date Filed: 03/18/2010N o. 09- 30177

11 f ou n d the F AAw h ol l y i n ap pl i cabl e to n o n si gn ator i es, a posi t i on t h at has now be e n r e pud i at e d b y t he Supr e m e Cour ti n Ca rlisle

. Id

. at 1902. A s s u ch, Carl i sle has c al l e d i nt o q ue s t i o n o urs t at e m e nti n Zi m m e r m an t h at di rectact i on pl ai n t i f fs c an n otbe requir ed to arbi t rat e as t h i rd pa rt y benef i c i ari e s o f

i ns ur an ce c o n tr a c ts
. T h e r e fo r e , t h e d i s t r ic t c o u r t is n o t b o u n db yit o n re m a n d

. A t t h is stag e, h ow ev er, w e tak e n o p ositi on o n w h eth er L ou i sian a ’ s d i rect a cti on statu te
w oul d r un af

oulof t he N ew Y ork C on vent i on i n t hi s c as e. W e l eave t hi s t o b e d e te r m in e do n re m a n d

. C. S i n ce t h e di st ri ctcourt , pri or t o Ca rlisle , pr op erly h eld th a t Zi m m e r m an controll ed the ou t com e of t h i s case, m an y of t h e i ssues rai sed by thi s c ase w ere
n o t fu lly fle s h e do u t in th e p r o c e e d in g s b e lo w . T h e r e fo r e , w e n o w re m a n dth is
c a s e to th e d is tr ic t co u r t a n ds u g g e s t s e v e r a l is s u e s , a m o n go th e r s , th a t s h o u ld lik e lyb e co n s id e r e db e lo w . F i rst , w e note t h at t h e rec ord does not i n cl u de a com pl et e copy of St eam shi p’ s 1999/2000 Ru l es , w hi ch co n t ai n t he arbi t r at i on c l ause t hat St eam shi p as se r t s bi nds Todd. Acc es s t o a c om pl et e c opy on r em and w oul d be h el pful , s i nc e i f t he t e r m s o f an ag r e e m e nt c l e ar l y ad dr e s s w he t her a
n on si gn ator y can be bou n d t o arbi t rat e, t h en court s neednot i n qu i re w h et h er
n on si gn ator i es c an be bou n d u n der t h i rd pa rt y ben ef i ci ary t h eory or ot h er d o c tr in e s . Se eSh e r e rv . G r e e n Tr e eSe r v i c i ngLLC , 548 F

. 3d 379 , 382 ( 5th C i r. 20 08 )

. Cer t ai nl y, To dd s ho ul d ha ve t he o ppo r t uni t y t o re vi e w t he f ul lR ul e s a nd br i ng t o t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s a t t e nt i o n a n y pr o vi s i o ns s ugg e s t i ng t hatt he
a rb itr a tio n cla u s e d o e s n o t a p p lyto n o n s ig n a to r ie s lik e T o d d

. Sec ond, duri n g th i s appeal , t he par t i es have notaddr es se d w hatl aw sh ou l d a p p l y t o dete rm i n e w h eth er T od d m u st arb i trate a s a n on sign a tory
. In Ca rlisle , t he S u p rem e Courtm ade c l eart hats t at e l aw c ont r ol s w het heran arbi t rat i on cl au se c an app l y t o non si gn ator i es. 129 S

. C t
. at 190 2. In pa rt i cul ar, Case: 09-30177 Document: 00511056253 Page: 11 Date Filed: 03/18/2010N o. 09- 30177

12 on rem an d, t h e parti es s h ou l d ad dress t h e ef fectof t h e cl au se i n t h e D el t a Q u een pol i cy sel ect i n g E n g l i sh l aw t o govern “contr act u alor ot h er s u bstantive or p roce d u ra lri gh ts an dob l i ga ti on s. ” T h i rd, t h e parti e s h a v e not ext en sivel y ad dressed i n t h ei r bri ef i n g on ap pe alw he t he ra l lo f To dd’ s cau s e s o f

a c t i o n fal lw i t hi n t he s c o pe o f t he
a rb itr a tio n c la u s e in t h e D e lta Q u e e n ’ s p o lic yw ith S te a m s h ip

. Se e Gr a v e s v . BP A m . , I n c. , 568 F. 3d 221, 2 22- 23 ( 5t h C i r . 2009) (perc uri am ) ( expl ai ni ng t hat
m o tio n to co m p e l a rb itr a tio n p r e s e n ts th e q u e s tio n o f w h e th e r“t h e d i s p u te in que s t i o n fal l s w i t hi n t he sc o pe of t he a rbit r at i o n a gr e e m e nt” )

. Sp e c i f i c al l y, t he di s t r i c tc o ur tm ayw i s h t o c o n si de rw he t he rt he e xi s t e nc e o f To dd’ s j udg m e nt
a ga i n st D elt a Q u ee n h a s a n y b ea ri n g o n w h eth er h e m u st arb i trate w i th S t eam shi p to col l ecton t h i s j u dg m en t
. In concl u si on , w e str ess that t h e i ssues
r ai se d abo ve ar e no nexhaust ive; w e o nl y s ugges tt ha t t hes e i ss ues s houl d be
c o ns i de r e d wi t hi n t he f r am e w o r k of

a f ul lanalys i s of

w he t he rTo dd c an be b o und t o arbi t rat e. III. C o n s e q u e n t ly , w e R E V E R S E th e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s d e n ia l o f S t e a m s h ip ’s
m ot i on t o com pelarbi t rat i on an d R E M A N D t h is ca se t o t h e di st ri ctcourtf or f ur t he rpr o c e e di ngs c o ns i s t e ntw i t h t hi s o pi ni o n. Case: 09-30177 Document: 00511056253 Page: 12 Date Filed: 03/18/2010