Abstract
International commercial arbitration has grown increasingly popular as an alternative method of dispute resolution. This Comment explores the struggle courts face when they must determine whether to apply the New York Convention, an international treaty that recognizes and compels arbitration agreements, or a federal statute known as the McCarran-Ferguson Act, which delegates authority to the states to regulate insurance. Conflict arises when foreign insurers seek to compel arbitration under the New York Convention in states with antiarbitration insurance laws, and courts must choose between upholding domestic state laws or honoring the Treaty.
This Comment examines the method of analysis used by the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Circuits to decide whether state antiarbitration laws reverse preempt the New York Convention. Further, this Comment analyzes how changing views on arbitration — reflected in proposed legislation such as the Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal (FAIR) Act of 2023 — impacts how courts weigh certain factors in their analyses. This Comment concludes by calling for courts to engage in interest-balancing analysis with greater consideration for consumer protection in the resolution of insurance disputes with foreign insurers.
Included in
Commercial Law Commons, Consumer Protection Law Commons, Courts Commons, Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Commons
