Chubb Bermuda Insurance Ltd v Fertitta Entertainment, Inc & Ors

An arbitration agreement’s governing law is determined separately from the law governing the wider contract. Where the parties expressly select English law for questions concerning the existence of the arbitration agreement, a foreign statute regulating insurance policies does not invalidate that agreement before the English court.

An anti-suit injunction ordinarily follows a valid arbitration agreement unless the defendant shows strong reasons to refuse relief. A closer connection with the foreign forum, considerations of comity, or mandatory foreign law are not, without more, strong reasons. The court may require the defendant to procure dismissal of foreign proceedings brought in breach of the arbitration agreement and may award damages for the resulting costs.

Chubb Bermuda Insurance Ltd sought final anti-suit relief in support of an arbitration agreement contained in a property insurance policy issued to the defendants. It also claimed damages for costs incurred in resisting proceedings brought by the defendants in Louisiana.

The defendants challenged the English court’s jurisdiction. They relied principally on Louisiana Revised Statutes 22:868, contending that the arbitration agreement was invalid under Louisiana law. They also argued that the dispute had no sufficient connection with England and that Louisiana was the more suitable forum.

The defendants did not attend the final hearing, although their position was set out in correspondence and earlier evidence. The central issues were the law governing the arbitration agreement, the court’s jurisdiction, the grant of anti-suit relief, and the claimant’s entitlement to damages and costs.

1. Jurisdiction. The jurisdiction challenge was dismissed. The court applied the approach in Enka Insaat ve Sanayi AS v OOO Insurance Company Chubb [2020] UKSC 38, as explained in UniCredit Bank GmbH v RusChemAlliance LLC [2024] UKSC 30. The arbitration agreement must be considered separately from the wider policy. General Provision 2 expressly provided that matters concerning the existence of the agreement to arbitrate were governed by the laws of England and Wales.
2. Because English law governed the arbitration agreement, Louisiana Revised Statutes 22:868 was irrelevant to the validity issue before the English court. The parties’ agreement to arbitrate in London also necessarily engaged the supervisory jurisdiction of the English court under the Arbitration Act 1996 and CPR 62. No additional connection with England was required, and the defendants could not displace the arbitration agreement by asserting that Louisiana was a more suitable forum.
3. Anti-suit relief. The arbitration agreement was valid and covered the matters pursued in Louisiana. An arbitration agreement contains a negative promise not to pursue court proceedings, enforceable whether or not arbitration has begun. Following UniCredit Bank GmbH v RusChemAlliance LLC [2024] UKSC 30 and QBE Europe SA/NV v Generali España de Seguros y Reaseguros [2022] EWHC 2062 (Comm), the court would ordinarily restrain proceedings brought in breach unless strong reasons were shown. No such reason had been advanced. The defendants were required to procure dismissal of the Louisiana proceedings by 19 June 2026.
4. Financial relief. The claimant was awarded US$709,052.88 for costs incurred in resisting the Louisiana proceedings, together with an indemnity for future United States legal costs. Costs of the English proceedings were awarded on the indemnity basis and summarily assessed at £444,516.16.