United States Seventh Circuit

In a dispute over selection of an arbitration panel to hear a reinsurance dispute, summary judgment for petitioners confirming the panel is affirmed where: 1) the controversy was not moot; 2) in interpreting an arbitration agreement that falls within the New York Convention, but that contains no choice-of-law provision, a federal common law rule of decision should apply; and 3) in the absence of a choice-of-law provision in the arbitration agreement, parties will be bound to the explicit language of arbitration clauses, with no state specific exceptions that would extend otherwise clear contractual deadlines.

Appellate Information

• Argued 01/19/2007
• Decided 08/29/2007
• Published 08/29/2007

Judges

• RIPPLE, Circuit Judge., Before RIPPLE, KANNE and SYKES, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Seventh Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• Hugh S. Balsam (argued), Robert A. Badgley, Susan P. Jordan, Lord Bissell & Brook, Chicago, IL, for Petitioners-Appellees., J. Timothy Eaton (argued), Shefsky & Froelich, Chicago, IL, for Respondent-Appellant.