Opinion ID: 2455129
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Similarities Between the Platinum Arbitration and the St. Paul Arbitration

Text: As described by the district court, the Platinum Arbitration appeared to resemble the St. Paul Arbitration in several ways. First, as noted above, Gentile served as the party-appointed arbitrator for the claimant in both proceedings, and Dassenko presided as umpire over each panel. See id. at 300. Second, although St. Paul was not itself a party to the Platinum Arbitration, St. Paul's business was related in several ways to Platinum's. See id. at 301-02. Most importantly, after St. Paul contributed its rights to renew its existing reinsurance contracts to Platinum's parent in 2002, Platinum succeeded St. Paul as PMA's reinsurer. Moreover, the core of Platinum's claim in the Platinum Arbitration was that, in calculating the balance of the experience account created by the Platinum-PMA contract, Platinum was entitled to carry forward certain losses that had been incurred by St. Paul under St. Paul's previous reinsurance contract with PMA. [13] See id. at 299; PMA Capital Ins. 659 F.Supp.2d at 639 (noting that the interpretation of the contract's Deficit Carry Forward Provision was the gravamen of the parties' dispute in the Platinum Arbitration). St. Paul asserts, however, that the district court mischaracterized the facts and that Platinum is not truly related to it in any meaningful way. Appellants' Br. at 49. Third, Hedgesa past employee of both Scandinavian and Platinumtestified in both proceedings. See Scandinavian, 732 F.Supp.2d at 306-07 & nn. 112, 113. Hedges' testimony in each proceeding related to two distinct periods of past employment. Nonetheless, the district court posited that Dassenko and Gentile could have concluded that Hedges testified inconsistentlyand therefore lacked credibilityinsofar as, in the Platinum Arbitration, Hedges testified in favor of interpreting the Platinum[-PMA] Agreement as written,  while in the St. Paul Arbitration, Hedges testified in favor of interpreting the Scandinavian[-St. Paul] Agreement in light of Scandinavian[]'s intent at the time it entered into the agreement. Id. at 308 (emphasis in original). St. Paul, for its part, argues that the involvement of Hedges as a witness in the two unrelated arbitrations is... irrelevant. Appellants' Br. at 51. Fourth, the district court determined that the two arbitrations shared similar [legal] issues. Id. at 307. [B]oth arbitrations required the arbitrators to (1) consider whether a finite[ [14] ] retrocessional agreement should be enforced according to the express terms of the agreement or whether the agreement should be interpreted in light of the parties' intentions at the formation of the agreement and (2) interpret contract language regarding the creation of experience accounts. Id. at 307 n. 118. Again, however, St. Paul criticizes the district court's assessment of similarity, arguing that it is couched at an overly broad level of generality. Appellants' Br. at 50.