Filed: Oct. 11, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. 18-3028 _ LIBERTY SURPLUS INSURANCE CORPORATION, Appellant v. AXA INSURANCE COMPANY; AXA CORPORATE SOLUTIONS ASSURANCE S.A. _ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. No. 2-16-cv-04977) District Judge: Hon. J. William Ditter, Jr. _ Argued September 11, 2019 Before: CHAGARES, JORDAN, and RESTREPO, Circuit Judges. (Filed: October 11, 2019) _ Timothy E. Corriston [ARGUED
Summary: NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. 18-3028 _ LIBERTY SURPLUS INSURANCE CORPORATION, Appellant v. AXA INSURANCE COMPANY; AXA CORPORATE SOLUTIONS ASSURANCE S.A. _ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. No. 2-16-cv-04977) District Judge: Hon. J. William Ditter, Jr. _ Argued September 11, 2019 Before: CHAGARES, JORDAN, and RESTREPO, Circuit Judges. (Filed: October 11, 2019) _ Timothy E. Corriston [ARGUED]..
More
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_____________
No. 18-3028
_____________
LIBERTY SURPLUS INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Appellant
v.
AXA INSURANCE COMPANY;
AXA CORPORATE SOLUTIONS ASSURANCE S.A.
_______________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. No. 2-16-cv-04977)
District Judge: Hon. J. William Ditter, Jr.
_______________
Argued
September 11, 2019
Before: CHAGARES, JORDAN, and RESTREPO, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: October 11, 2019)
_______________
Timothy E. Corriston [ARGUED]
Nicole B. Dory
Connell Foley
56 Livingston Avenue
Roseland, NJ 07068
Patrick J. Hughes
Connell Foley
457 Haddonfield Road
Liberty View Building – Ste. 230
Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
Counsel for Appellant
Gerald A. Dever
Roberta D. Liebenberg
Ria C. Momblanco
Fine Kaplan & Black
One South Broad Street – Ste. 2300
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Michael C. Ledley [ARGUED]
Wollmuth Maher & Deutsch
500 Fifth Avenue – 12th Fl.
New York, NY 10110
Counsel for Appellee AXA Corporate
Solutions Assurance, SA
_____________
OPINION ∗
_______________
JORDAN, Circuit Judge.
Liberty Surplus Insurance Corporation (“Liberty”) brought an action seeking, inter
alia, equitable contribution from AXA Corporate Solutions Assurance, S.A. (“AXA CS”)
and AXA Insurance Company (“AXA US”) for insurance claims filed by Ardagh Metal
Packaging USA, Inc. (“Ardagh US”), a subsidiary of Ardagh Group, S.A. (“Ardagh
Global”). The District Court concluded that the forum selection clause in the AXA CS
global insurance policy required that claims regarding the policy be brought in the courts
∗
This disposition is not an opinion of the full court and, pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7,
does not constitute binding precedent.
2
of Ireland and thus dismissed the claims against AXA CS. The Court authorized
immediate appeal of that decision pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). We
will affirm the order of dismissal.
I. BACKGROUND
AXA CS provides Ardagh Global, a packaging manufacturer, with excess
insurance 1 worldwide, pursuant to a Global Master Policy. The Global Master Policy
“provides coverage for, among other things, … products liability … excess of any
underlying insurance.” (App. at 268.) It also insures Ardagh Global and its subsidiaries
against a first- or third-party product recall occurring “anywhere in the world[.]” (App. at
89.) The Global Master Policy includes this forum selection and choice of law clause:
“In the event of a dispute concerning this Policy it is understood and agreed by both the
Insured and the Insurer that the resolution of such dispute shall be governed by the laws
of the Republic of Ireland whose courts shall have exclusive jurisdiction[.]” (App. at 65.)
The Global Master Policy also mandates that a “Local Underlying Policy” issued
by AXA CS, an authorized third party, or an approved insurer be “maintain[ed] in force”
by Ardagh Global or its subsidiaries in certain countries, including the United States.
(App. at 108.) Those underlying insurance policies are “incorporated in and form part
of” the Global Master Policy. (Id.) Pursuant to that mandate, Ardagh US maintained two
1
Excess or secondary insurance is different than primary insurance, absorbing a
measure of catastrophic risk beyond that covered by a primary insurer. 15 Steven Plitt et
al., Couch on Insurance § 220:32 (3d ed. 2019).
3
policies with AXA US. In addition, Ardagh US obtained insurance from Liberty to cover
liability stemming from product recalls.
Ardagh US incurred losses related to a product recall of steel tuna fish cans that it
manufactured, so it asked for payment from both AXA US and Liberty. AXA US
forwarded the claim to AXA CS. When AXA US and Liberty each refused to pay the
claim, Ardagh US wrote to AXA US, Liberty, and AXA CS to complain. AXA CS
replied by sending four letters to Ardagh US at the latter’s offices in Pennsylvania,
including a Letter of Comfort stating that, if Liberty paid Ardagh US, “AXA w[ould] not
argue that Liberty is prevented solely by reason of that payment … from seeking a
contribution from” AXA CS. (App. at 298.) Eventually, Liberty paid the claim.
Liberty then filed this action seeking a declaratory judgment that the claim is
covered by the AXA CS and AXA US policies; equitable contribution/indemnification
from AXA CS and AXA US; and specific performance requiring AXA CS and AXA US
to comply with their contractual obligations. Following the District Court’s grant of
Liberty’s motion for jurisdictional discovery, AXA CS filed a motion to dismiss for lack
of personal jurisdiction and to enforce the forum selection clause, which the District
Court granted. The Court determined that it lacked personal jurisdiction over AXA CS.
It also concluded that the recovery Liberty sought was based on the Global Master Policy
and that the forum selection clause in that contract should govern the case since, “[a]s
beneficiary of the global policy, [Liberty], even though a non-signatory, may be bound by
the forum selection clause.” (App. at 9.) Because that clause required that claims against
4
AXA CS be brought in the courts of Ireland, the District Court dismissed Liberty’s
claims against AXA CS.
Liberty moved for entry of a final judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 54(b) in order to appeal AXA CS’s dismissal, and its motion was granted. 2
This timely appeal followed.
II. DISCUSSION 3
On appeal, Liberty contends that the District Court had specific personal
jurisdiction and that the forum selection clause is unenforceable. We disagree as to the
second point and so we need not reach the first. 4
There are three elements to consider in determining whether a non-signatory is
bound by a forum selection clause. First, we ask whether the non-signatory is an
intended third-party beneficiary of the contract or a closely-related party. In re McGraw
Hill Glob. Educ. Holdings, LLC, 909 F.3d 48, 59 (3d Cir. 2018). Second, we analyze
whether enforcement of the forum selection clause was foreseeable to the non-signatory.
2
Liberty’s claims against AXA US remain pending. They are not at issue in this
appeal.
3
The District Court had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. We
have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. “The interpretation and
enforcement of a forum selection clause is a matter of law, and we exercise plenary
review over it.” Salovaara v. Jackson Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 246 F.3d 289, 295 (3d Cir.
2001).
4
We have “discretion to address convenience-based venue issues[,]” such as
forum selection clauses, before reaching other threshold issues. In re: Howmedica
Osteonics Corp., 867 F.3d 390, 404 n.8 (3d Cir. 2017).
5
Id. Third, we determine if “the dispute itself … fall[s] within the scope of the forum
selection clause.”
Id.
On appeal, Liberty argues that it is not an intended third-party beneficiary or a
closely-related party to the contract; enforcement of the forum selection clause against it
was not foreseeable; and its equitable claim does not fall within the scope of the forum
selection clause. 5
Before the District Court, Liberty only argued that its equitable claim did not fall
within the scope of the forum selection clause. Accordingly, any other arguments
regarding why it should not be bound by the forum selection clause are forfeited. Cf. Tri-
M Grp., LLC v. Sharp, 638 F.3d 406, 416 (3d Cir. 2011) (“It is axiomatic that arguments
asserted for the first time on appeal are deemed to be waived and consequently are not
susceptible to review in this Court absent exceptional circumstances.” (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted)). And that sole argument that it preserved fails.
The forum selection clause governs any “dispute concerning [the Global Master]
Policy[.]” (App. at 65.) 6 As the District Court reasoned, “[t]he equitable contribution
claim is based, at least in part, upon obligations created by the AXA global policy.”
(App. at 9.) It is true that Liberty’s claim is for contribution, and not subrogation,
5
Liberty’s claims for declaratory judgment and specific performance of the AXA
Global Policy clearly concern the AXA Global Policy and thus fall within the scope of
the forum selection clause, as Liberty rightly conceded at oral argument.
6
This Court has broadly interpreted “dispute” when considering forum selection
clauses. John Wyeth & Bro. Ltd. v. CIGNA Int’l Corp., 119 F.3d 1070, 1074 (3d Cir.
1997) (rejecting a narrow interpretation of the term that only covers claims).
6
wherein Liberty would stand in Ardagh Global’s shoes, but that does not change the fact
that the equitable contribution claim is one “concerning” the AXA Global Policy. Cf.
Crescent Int’l Inc. v. Avatar Cmtys., Inc., 857 F.2d 943, 944 (3d Cir. 1988) (“[P]leading
alternate non-contractual theories is not alone enough to avoid a forum selection clause if
the claims asserted arise out of the contractual relation and implicate the contract’s
terms.”). Indeed, the claim on its face relies on the terms of that policy. (See App. at 38,
39 (stating that the product recall claim “falls within the grants of coverage of the AXA
Insurers’ Policies, and no exclusions apply to bar coverage”).) That the claim seeks
equitable relief does not change that fact, nor alter the legal conclusion that flows from it.
Accordingly, the District Court did not err in dismissing Liberty’s claims against AXA
CS.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.
7
