The U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont denied a motion to vacate an arbitration award after it concluded that the party seeking vacatur had failed to identify information it claimed made the arbitrator evidently partial and then failed to ask the arbitrator to recuse himself once that information came to light.
ICI Mutual Insurance Co. (ICIM) and reinsurers Hamilton Managing Agency Ltd. and Antares Managing Agency Ltd. arbitrated a reinsurance matter. The arbitrator ruled in favor of ICIM. ICIM moved to confirm the award and the reinsurers moved to vacate it. The reinsurers argued, among other things, that the arbitrator had failed to timely disclose relevant testimony he had previously given and that the award should be overturned for evident partiality as a result.
The District of Vermont rejected the reinsurers’ claim. It noted that the reinsurers could have discovered the arbitrator’s testimony through basic searches before selecting the arbitrator or by asking for the arbitrator’s CV. The reinsurers apparently failed to conduct those searches or even ask for the arbitrator’s CV. They instead agreed to the arbitrator. The reinsurers then learned about the arbitrator’s prior testimony during the arbitration but did not formally request that the arbitrator withdraw or seek recusal. They instead informally asked the arbitrator to consider whether his prior opinions would inhibit his ability to decide the issues fairly. The district court explained that the reinsurers had waived any challenge to the arbitrator by failing to investigate the arbitrator’s testimony and not formally asking the arbitrator to recuse himself. The district court also held that the reinsurers had not established that the arbitrator was evidently partial in any event. The court also rejected the reinsurers’ arguments that the arbitrator had exceeded the scope of his authority and manifestly disregarded the law.
Hamilton Managing Agency Ltd. v. ICI Mutual Insurance Co., No. 2:25-mc-00079 (D. Vt. April 14, 2026).
©2026 Carlton Fields, P.A. Carlton Fields practices law in California through Carlton Fields, LLP. Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our Contact Us form via the link below. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites.
Perspectives on reinsurance and arbitration law and practice.
Recent Posts
Editorial Contacts
Shareholder
Shareholder
Of Counsel
Shareholder
Shareholder
