Of principle, practicality, and precedents: the presumption of the arbitration agreement’s governing law

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aaron Yoong
Keyword(s):  
Insurance Company ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
The Matrix ◽  
Governing Law

Abstract The issue of determining the appropriate law governing an arbitration agreement is one that has long vexed the courts in many jurisdictions. Most recently, both the English and Singapore Court of Appeals have waded into the fray, contributing contrary opinions in their respective decisions of Enka Insaat Ve Sanayi AS v OOO “Insurance Company Chubb” and BNA v BNB. This article examines these decisions and argues that there should be a presumption that the governing law of the arbitration agreement follows the matrix contract within which it is situated.

Putting the Principle of Severability in the Dock: An Analysis in the Context of Choice of Law for Arbitration and Jurisdiction Agreements

2021 ◽  
pp. 139-174
Author(s):  
Koji Takahashi
Keyword(s):  
Choice Of Law ◽  
The Matrix ◽  
Substantive Law ◽  
Governing Law

This essay proposes a principled approach to determining the governing law of arbitration agreements and jurisdiction agreements. Acknowledging the usefulness of the principle of severability in the sphere of substantive law, the author opposes the extension of the principle to the sphere of choice of law analysis to treat such agreements as a distinct contract severed from the matrix contract. The author, however, accepts that such agreements are, like any other terms in the same matrix contract, subject to the choice of law technique for splitting up terms within a single contract known as dépeçage, while suggesting that the possibility of involuntary dépeçage should be circumscribed. It is noted that splitting up terms within a contract by means of dépeçage is not the same as treating a term as a distinct contract in terms of choice of law methodology. This essay also examines English cases and seeks to reconcile the proposed approach with the text of existing instruments.

Medicare: Ninth Circuit Limits Rates Providers Can Charge Medigap Insurers

2003 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 159-160
Author(s):  
Ed Caldie
Keyword(s):  
Medical Treatment ◽  
District Court ◽  
Insurance Company ◽  
Insurance Policy ◽  
Breach Of Contract ◽  
Ninth Circuit ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
Medicare Coverage ◽  
Summary Judgment ◽  
The U.S

In Vencor, Inc. v. National States Insurance Co., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a Medigap insurance provider was only obligated to pay the rates that Medicare would have paid for the same care.Clarence Rollins purchased a Medigap insurance policy from National States Insurance Company (NSIC) to supplement his Medicare coverage. When Rollins became ill and required care beyond that which Medicare would cover, he received his medical treatment from Vencor Hospital-Phoenix (Vencor). Upon Rollins's death, NSIC paid Vencor $38,760. Vencor claimed that NSIC owed an additional $132,438 because NSIC was not entitled to the lower care rates established by Medicare. NSIC refused to pay Vencor's higher rates. As a result, Vencor sued NSIC for breach of contract.The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona held, on a motion for summary judgment, that no breach occurred, and that NSIC was obligated to pay only the lower rates established by Mediare. The Ninth Circuit affirmed this decision.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document