McKnight v. Chicago Title Insurance Co., Inc., No. 03-12129. Non-Argument Calendar.
Decision Date | 30 January 2004 |
Docket Number | No. 03-12129. Non-Argument Calendar. |
Parties | Charles K. McKNIGHT, Jean B. McKnight, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE CO., INC., Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
Cheryl Barnes Legare, Gregory J. Digel, Holland & Knight, LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Charles K. McKnight, Jr., King & Spalding, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia.
Before BARKETT, HULL and COX, Circuit Judges.
I. INTRODUCTION
This appeal presents a single issue: whether the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1, et seq., preempts the Georgia Arbitration Code, Ga.Code Ann. § 1, et. seq., inasmuch as the Georgia Arbitration Code expressly excludes from its coverage arbitration provisions in insurance contracts. We conclude that it does not: by virtue of the McCarran-Ferguson Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1012(b), the Federal Arbitration Act does not preempt the insurance contract provision of the Georgia Arbitration Code. Because the district court also came to this conclusion, we affirm the district court's order denying the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration.
II. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In 1991, Charles and Jean McKnight, Plaintiffs below, acquired a tract of property in Georgia, and contracted with Defendant, Chicago Title Insurance Company, for title insurance. The insurance contract included an arbitration provision, which read, in pertinent part:
Unless prohibited by applicable law, either the Company or the insured may demand arbitration.... All arbitrable matters when the Amount of Insurance is $1,000,000 or less shall be arbitrated at the option of either the Company or the insured. All arbitrable matters when the Amount of Insurance is in excess of $1,000,000 shall be arbitrated only when agreed to by both the Company and the insured....
The law of the situs of the land shall apply to an arbitration....
(R.1-1 at Ex. 1 at Conditions and Stipulations ¶ 14.) The title insurance policy guaranteed that the McKnights would have a fifty-foot-wide easement on their property.
In 2001, when they attempted to subdivide the property, the McKnights learned that the easement was only twenty feet wide, and thus the property was unsuitable for subdividing. They then made a claim against Chicago Title for the diminished value of the property. Chicago Title denied the claim, and the McKnights filed this breach-of-contract action in the district court. Chicago Title moved to compel arbitration, and the district court denied its motion, reasoning that the Georgia Arbitration Code's exclusion of arbitration provisions in insurance contracts made the arbitration provision in this case unenforceable.1 Chicago Title appeals the denial of the motion.
III. CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES AND STANDARDS OF REVIEW
Chicago Title contends that the district court erred in concluding that the Georgia Arbitration Code makes the arbitration provision unenforceable. This was a conclusion of law which we review de novo. Parker v. Secretary for the Dep't of Corrs., 331 F.3d 764, 768 (11th Cir.2003). See also Davis v. Southern Energy Homes, Inc., 305 F.3d 1268, 1270 (11th Cir.2002) ().
IV. DISCUSSION
The sole issue in this appeal involves the intersection of three statutes. First is the Federal Arbitration Act, which provides the general rule:
A written provision in any ... contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of such contract or transaction, or the refusal to perform the whole or any part thereof, or an agreement in writing to submit to arbitration an existing controversy arising out of such a contract, transaction, or refusal, shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.
9 U.S.C. § 2. This federal rule, that arbitration provisions in contracts involving commerce will be enforced, generally preempts state law to the contrary. Volt Info. Sciences, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior Univ., 489 U.S. 468, 478, 109 S.Ct. 1248, 1255, 103 L.Ed.2d 488 (1989) () (citation omitted). The parties in this case agree that the contract containing the arbitration provision at issue is a contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce.
Second is the exception to the rule, found in the McCarran-Ferguson Act, which leaves the regulation of the insurance industry to the states:
No Act of Congress shall be construed to invalidate, impair, or supersede any law enacted by any State for the purpose of regulating the business of insurance,... unless such Act specifically relates to the business of insurance ...
15 U.S.C. § 1012(b). In the right circumstances, the McCarran-Ferguson Act provides an exception to the general rule of arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act. If the state has an anti-arbitration law enacted for the purpose of regulating the business of insurance, and if enforcing, pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, an arbitration clause would invalidate, impair, or supersede that state law, a court should refuse to enforce the arbitration clause. Standard Sec. Life Ins. Co. of New York v. West, 267 F.3d 821, 823 (8th Cir.2001) ( ). The parties and we agree that the Federal Arbitration Act does not itself specifically relate to the business of insurance.
Third is the statute we must interpret to determine whether it falls into the general rule or the exception. It is the Georgia Arbitration Act, and specifically the part of that act which excludes arbitration provisions in insurance contracts from its coverage. That provision reads:
[The Georgia Arbitration Code] shall apply to all disputes in which the parties thereto have agreed in writing to arbitrate and shall provide the exclusive means by which agreements to arbitrate disputes can be enforced, except the following, to which this part shall not apply:
. . .
(3) Any contract of insurance, as defined in paragraph (1) of Code Section 33-1-2; provided, however, that nothing in this paragraph shall impair or prohibit the enforcement of or in any way invalidate an arbitration clause or provision in a contract between insurance companies;
Ga.Code Ann. § 9-9-2(c). Based on this provision, Georgia courts refuse to enforce arbitration provisions in insurance contracts. Continental Ins. Co. v. Equity Residential Props. Trust, 255 Ga.App. 445, 565 S.E.2d 603, 605-06 (Ga.Ct.App.2002) ( ), cert. denied (Ga.2002). Cf. Pinnacle Constr. Co., Inc. v. Osborne, 218 Ga.App. 366, 460 S.E.2d 880, 882 (1995) ( ).
Because the parties do not dispute that the Federal Arbitration Act's preempting Ga.Code Ann. § 9-9-2(c)(3) would invalidate, impair, or supersede § 9-9-2(c)(3), we are left with only one question: whether § 9-9-2(c)(3) is "a law enacted" by Georgia "for the purpose of regulating the business of insurance," as that term is used in the McCarran-Ferguson Act. The McCarran-Ferguson Act does not define this term, but a pair of Supreme Court cases do. The Court stated in Secs. and Exch. Comm'n v. National Secs., Inc., 393 U.S. 453, 460, 89 S.Ct. 564, 568, 21 L.Ed.2d 668 (1969) that, in the McCarran-Ferguson Act, Congress was seeking to leave to the states the "relationship between insurer and insured, the type of policy which could be issued, its reliability, interpretation, and enforcement." Thus, "[s]tatutes aimed at protecting or regulating this relationship, directly or indirectly are laws regulating the `business of insurance.'" Id. at 460, 89 S.Ct. at 568-69. Later, in Union Labor Life Ins. Co. v. Pireno, 458 U.S. 119, 129, 102 S.Ct. 3002, 3009, 73 L.Ed.2d 647 (1982), the Court enumerated "three criteria relevant in determining whether a particular practice is part of the `business of insurance:'"
first, whether the practice has the effect of transferring or spreading a policyholder's risk; second, whether the practice is an integral part of the policy relationship between the insurer and the insured; and third, whether the practice is limited to entities within the insurance industry. None of these criteria is necessarily determinative in itself...
Based on these definitions of laws regulating the business of insurance, we conclude, like the only other two federal courts of appeals to address this question have concluded, that a provision in a state's...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lawson v. Life of The South Ins. Co.
... ... LIFE OF THE SOUTH INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation, DefendantAppellant. No ... v. Soler ChryslerPlymouth, Inc. , 473 U.S. 614, 626, 105 S.Ct. 3346, 3353, 87 ... McKnight v. Chi. Title Ins. Co. , 358 F.3d 854, 859 (11th ... ...
-
Pinnoak Resources v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's
... ... Allied World Assurance Company Ltd., XL Insurance (Bermuda) Ltd., Commonwealth Insurance Company, ... , Axis Specialty Europe, Ltd., and VeriClaim, Inc., Defendants ... No. Civ.A.5:04-0192 ... United ... See, American Fire & Casualty Co. v. Finn, 341 U.S. 6, 71 S.Ct. 534, 95 L.Ed. 702 ... See, McKnight v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., 358 F.3d 854 (11th ... ...
-
Kremer v. Rural Cmty. Ins. Co., S-09-900, S-09-901.
... ... RURAL COMMUNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation, appellee. Gary Moody, ... 598 title. 15 In Green Tree Financial Corp.-Ala. v ... In SEC v. National Securities, Inc., 58 the Court first interpreted the ... 768 A.2d at 629, citing First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 115 S.Ct. 1920, ... 2202. 63 See, Inman, supra note 57; McKnight v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., Inc., 358 F.3d 854 ... ...
-
Goshawk Dedicated v. Portmouth Settlement Co. I
... ... PORTSMOUTH SETTLEMENT COMPANY I, INC., Defendant ... Civil Action No ... ("Goshawk"), a British insurance underwriting company, brought this action against ... See McKnight v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., 358 F.3d 854 (11th ... ...
-
HASSETT'S OBJECTIONS - The Filed Rate Doctrine: A Love Story
...expressly provides otherwise. See Am. Bankers Ins. Co. of Fla. v Inman, 436 F.3d 490 (5th Cir. 2006); McKnight v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., 358 F.3d 854 (11th Cir. Just in time for insurers, the filed rate doctrine has gained momentum. Most recently, in Armour v. Transamerica Life Ins. Co., C......
-
HASSETT'S OBJECTIONS - Supreme Court Roundup
...provides otherwise. See Am. Bankers Ins. Co. of Fla. v. Inman, 436 F.3d. 490 (5th Cir. 2006); McKnight v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., 358 F.3d 854 (11th Cir. 2004). The result is that in those states that restrict arbitrability of insurance contracts, Concepcion will be of little help and may b......
-
Arbitration: Interface of Thefederal Arbitration Act Andnebraska State Law
...(2006). 221.Standard Sec. Life Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. West, 267 F.3d 821 (8th Cir. 2001).SeeMcKnight v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., Inc., 358 F.3d 854 (11th Cir. 2004); Mutual Reinsur-ance Bureau v. Great Plains Mut. Ins. Co., Inc., 969 F.2d 931 (10th Cir. 222.29 U.S.C. §1144(b)(2)(A) (2006). 223.......
-
Insurance - Stephen M. Schatz, Stephen L. Cotter, and Bradley S. Wolff
...S.E.2d at 417. 120. Id. 121. Id. 122. 9 U.S.C. Sec. 1-14 (2000 & Supp. 2001). 123. O.C.G.A. Sec. 9-9-1 to -84 (1982 & Supp. 2004). 124. 358 F.3d 854 (S.D. Ga. 2004). 125. Id. at 856. 126. O.C.G.A. Sec. 9-9-2(c) (1993 & Supp. 2004). 127. McKnight, 358 F.3d at 859. 128. Stephen L. Cotter, Ste......