Ernst & Young, LLP v. Clark

323 S.W.3d 682 (Ky. 2010) · Supreme Court of Kentucky · August 26, 2010 · No. Nos. 2007-SC-000770-TG, 2007-SC-000936-TG

Summary

The Supreme Court of Kentucky considered whether arbitration agreements in Ernst & Young's engagement letters with AIK Comp could be enforced against the insurance rehabilitator and against AIK Comp's member-employers in a class action. The court held that the Kentucky Insurers Rehabilitation and Liquidation Law, through McCarran-Ferguson Act reverse preemption, prevented arbitration of the rehabilitator's claims because those claims fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Franklin Circuit Court. The court concluded that the class action plaintiffs were bound by the arbitration agreements.

Court
Supreme Court of Kentucky
Writing for the Court
Justice Venters
Jurisdiction
Kentucky
Decision date
August 26, 2010
Docket number
Nos. 2007-SC-000770-TG, 2007-SC-000936-TG
Procedural posture
Ernst & Young appealed Franklin Circuit Court orders denying its motions to stay the proceedings and compel arbitration of claims brought by the AIK Comp Rehabilitator and by AIK Comp members in a consolidated class action. The appeals were transferred to and consolidated by the Supreme Court of Kentucky.
Standard of review
De novo review of the enforceability and scope of arbitration agreements and questions of statutory interpretation.
Precedential value
Published Kentucky Supreme Court opinion; binding precedent in Kentucky.
Parties
Ernst & Young, LLP, David S. Meyer v. Sharon P. Clark, in her official capacity as Commissioner for the Kentucky Department of Insurance and Rehabilitator of AIK Comp, Stephen P. Lattanzio, Actuarial & Technical Solutions, Inc., John and Jane Does, all unknown actuaries and accountants, Appalachian Regional Healthcare, Inc., Apollo Oil, LLP, Art's Electric, Inc., Crittenden Health Systems, European Design, Inc., Fischer Special Manufacturing Company, Gallatin Health Care, LLC, Hopewell Farm, LLC, Louden & Company, LLC, M & M Cartage, Inc., Modco Transport, Pattie A. Clay Regional Medical Center
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded

Topics

arbitrationinsurancestatutory interpretationfederalismcommercial litigation

Practice areas

insurancearbitrationcommercial litigationcivil procedurestatutory interpretation

Questions Presented

  1. Whether arbitration agreements in Ernst & Young's engagement letters with AIK Comp could be enforced over the objection of the Rehabilitator in AIK Comp's rehabilitation proceeding.
  2. Whether AIK Comp members who did not sign the engagement letters were nevertheless bound by the arbitration provisions in those letters.
  3. Whether the class action plaintiffs' claims arose out of or related to Ernst & Young's audit services.
  4. Whether the possibility of inefficient, piecemeal, or inconsistent adjudication justified refusing to compel arbitration of the class action claims.

Holdings

  1. The arbitration agreements were not enforceable over the Rehabilitator's objection because the Kentucky Insurers Rehabilitation and Liquidation Law's broad exclusive-jurisdiction provisions conflicted with and were impaired by enforcement of the Federal Arbitration Act's arbitration policy; the McCarran-Ferguson Act therefore reverse-preempted the Federal Arbitration Act in this context.
  2. The class action plaintiffs were bound to arbitrate their claims because their AIK Comp membership applications required them to conform to the terms of agreements AIK Comp entered into with authorized service companies, including Ernst & Young's engagement letters.
  3. The class action claims arose out of or related to Ernst & Young's audit and accounting services and therefore fell within the broad arbitration clauses in the engagement letters.
  4. The possibility of duplicative proceedings, increased expense, or inconsistent results did not justify refusing to compel arbitration of the class action plaintiffs' claims.

Key quotations

We conclude that the IRLL's broad grant of exclusive jurisdiction to the Franklin Circuit Court in matters relating to the delinquency of insurance companies preempts and supersedes the Federal Arbitration Act and its policy favoring arbitration. (at 688)
In this case, application of the McCarran-Ferguson Act reverse-preempts the Federal Arbitration Act. (at 692)
By accepting membership in AIK Comp, the class action plaintiffs agreed to "conform" to AIK Comp's agreements. (at 695)

Factual background

AIK Comp was a Kentucky workers' compensation self-insurance group subject to statutory auditing and financial-reporting requirements. Ernst & Young performed annual audits under engagement letters containing mediation and Federal Arbitration Act arbitration clauses, and the audits reported that AIK Comp was financially sound. A later examination revealed a substantial deficit, leading to rehabilitation proceedings, claims by the Rehabilitator against Ernst & Young, and a separate class action by AIK Comp members who had paid assessments to cover the deficit.

Procedural history

After AIK Comp became insolvent and entered rehabilitation, its Rehabilitator sued Ernst & Young for allegedly negligent audits and related tort claims. AIK Comp members separately brought a class action based on alleged misrepresentations and omissions in those audits. The Franklin Circuit Court denied Ernst & Young's motions to compel arbitration in both cases. The Supreme Court of Kentucky affirmed denial of arbitration as to the Rehabilitator's claims but reversed as to the class action claims and remanded for an order compelling arbitration.

Remand instructions

Affirm the order in Civil Action No. 05-CI-00344 denying arbitration of the Rehabilitator's claims; reverse the order in Civil Action No. 05-CI-00455 and remand for entry of an order compelling arbitration of the class action lawsuit and for further proceedings on the Rehabilitator's claims.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…