In a recent decision, the Louisiana Supreme Court answered key legal questions in Police Jury of Calcasieu Parish v. Indian Harbor Insurance Co., underscoring Louisiana’s public policy that protects state courts’ jurisdiction in insurance disputes involving political subdivisions. This ruling impacts public entities and insurance carriers alike, affirming restrictions on arbitration clauses in contracts with Louisiana public bodies.
Case Background
In the wake of Hurricanes Laura and Delta in 2020, the Police Jury of Calcasieu Parish (“Calcasieu”), a Louisiana political subdivision, sought compensation for extensive damages to over 300 properties insured by a syndicate of insurers both foreign (London Market) and domestic, who, through separate contracts, insured approximately 300 locations in Calcasieu Parish. When disputes arose over claim payments, Calcasieu filed suit in Louisiana State Court against the insurers. Shortly thereafter, Calcasieu dismissed with prejudice the only two foreign insurers, leaving the domestic insurers as the remaining Defendants in the case. Calcasieu had the case remanded back to state court, but it was removed again on motion of the Defendants.
Defendants also filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings. Defendants sought to compel arbitration by enforcing arbitration clauses found in the two London Market insurers’ policies with Calcasieu, which requires all claims associated with the policies to be submitted to arbitration proceedings in New York, where the arbitration tribunal must apply New York law. Upon Motion of Calcasieu, the Western District of Louisiana certified three pivotal questions to the Louisiana Supreme Court regarding the enforceability of arbitration clauses in contracts with political subdivisions, focusing on specific Louisiana statutes designed to keep disputes involving public entities within the state’s jurisdiction.
The Certified Questions and Court Analysis
The Louisiana Supreme Court provided crucial answers to each question, upholding Louisiana’s long-standing policy against arbitration clauses in such contracts. The court’s decision referenced essential cases that shaped its reasoning:
- Did the 2020 Amendment to La. R.S. 22:868 Allow Arbitration Clauses in Insurance Contracts?
– The court held that the 2020 amendment to La. R.S. 22:868, which added a Subsection D, did not implicitly repeal Subsection A’s prohibition on arbitration clauses in insurance policies issued within Louisiana. The amendment allowed forum and venue selection clauses in limited circumstances, but did not extend that allowance to arbitration provisions.
– The court distinguished arbitration clauses from forum or venue selection clauses, emphasizing that arbitration deprives Louisiana courts of jurisdiction—a key point outlined in Creekstone Juban I, L.L.C. v. XL Insurance America, Inc. (2019), where the court held that forum selection clauses were permissible because they did not strip courts of jurisdiction, unlike arbitration clauses, which deny litigants access to Louisiana courts.
– Drawing from U.S. v. Will (1980), the court reiterated that implied repeals of statutes are generally disfavored unless two laws are irreconcilably inconsistent. Here, the court found that La. R.S. 22:868(D) created a limited exception for venue selection clauses, but did not extend to arbitration, maintaining Louisiana’s traditional prohibition against arbitration clauses in insurance contracts.
- Does La. R.S. 9:2778 Apply to Insurance Contracts with Public Entities?
– In response to whether La. R.S. 9:2778, which prohibits arbitration or foreign law in contracts with state political subdivisions, applies to public insurance contracts, the court answered in the affirmative. This statute renders any agreement requiring arbitration or foreign law in a contract with a political subdivision null and void.
– Noting the decision in Westlake v. Republic Fire & Casualty Insurance Co. (2023), a federal district court case which applied La. R.S. 9:2778 to void forum selection clauses in insurance contracts with Louisiana public entities, the court affirmed that insurance policies with political subdivisions qualify as public contracts. The court echoed the Westlake court’s rationale that these contracts are purchased with public funds, cover public property, and thus fall under the statute’s protection.
- Can Domestic Insurers Use Equitable Estoppel to Enforce Arbitration Clauses in Other Insurers’Policies?
– The court found that equitable estoppel—a common law doctrine used to prevent a party from contradicting previous statements if another has relied on them—cannot be used by domestic insurers to circumvent Louisiana’s statutory prohibition on arbitration clauses in insurance contracts. Equitable estoppel, the court reasoned, cannot override the “positive law” explicitly prohibiting arbitration in La. R.S. 22:868(A)(2).
– The court referenced S.K.A.V., L.L.C. v. Independent Specialty Insurance Co. (5th Cir. 2024), a federal case which affirmed that La. R.S. 22:868 remains anti-arbitration. Additionally, in Creekstone Juban, the Louisiana Supreme Court had previously underscored the importance of statutory law over equitable doctrines in cases where statutory prohibitions are clear.
– Finally, the court also dismissed Bufkin Enterprises v. Indian Harbor Insurance Co. (5th Cir. 2024), which had allowed equitable estoppel to enforce arbitration in international insurance contracts, as inapplicable to domestic insurers.
Conclusion: A Victory for State Jurisdiction
This decision upholds Louisiana’s policy of restricting arbitration clauses in insurance contracts with public entities, emphasizing that Louisiana courts must maintain jurisdiction over these disputes. By reinforcing statutory provisions such as La. R.S. 22:868 and La. R.S. 9:2778, the Louisiana Supreme Court limits the reach of both foreign and domestic insurers’ arbitration efforts in public contracts, ensuring that disputes involving public entities like the Police Jury of Calcasieu Parish remain in-state. This ruling reaffirms Louisiana’s commitment to protect its public bodies from mandatory out-of-state arbitration, setting a clear precedent for insurers and public entities in future disputes.
Clark & Fox is a firm of experienced lawyers with diverse international and domestic practices that focuses on representing the interests of the insurance industry. Information about all of Clark & Fox’s locations, attorneys, and practice areas is available at https://www.clarkfoxlaw.com.
For more information, please contact: John M. Clark, CEO/President: jclark@clarkfoxlaw.com.
