Life Receivables Trust v. Goshawk Syndicate 102 at Lloyd's

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
================================================================= This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York Reports. ----------------------------------------------------------------No. 138 SSM 12 Life Receivables Trust, Plaintiff, v. Goshawk Syndicate 102 at Lloyd's, Respondent, Life Settlement Corporation, Doing Business as Peach Tree Life Settlements, Appellant. Submitted by Israel Rubin, for appellant. Submitted by Evan L. Smoak, for respondent. MEMORANDUM: The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed with costs. The certified question should not be answered as unnecessary. The Appellate Division properly concluded that the - 1 - - 2 - SSM No. 12 scope and validity of the parties' arbitration agreement, including issues of arbitrability, are for the arbitration tribunal to determine (see Matter of Smith Barney Shearson v Sacharow, 91 NY2d 39, 45-47 [1997]; Contec Corp. v Remote Solution, Co., Ltd., 398 F3d 295, 211 [2d Cir 2005]). Although Hall St. Assoc., L.L.C. v Mattel, Inc. (552 US 576 [2008]) prohibits parties from expanding, by their own agreement, the scope of judicial review beyond that authorized by the Federal Arbitration Act, clear and unmistakable evidence exists in this case that the parties agreed to arbitrate questions of arbitrability, including whether the parties' arbitration agreement is invalid under Hall St. Assoc. or whether the apparently offending provision could be severed from the remainder of the agreement. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules, order affirmed, with costs, and certified question not answered upon the ground that it is unnecessary, in a memorandum. Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur. Decided May 4, 2010 - 2 -

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.