Prot. Life Ins. Corp. v. Lincoln Nat'l Life Ins. Corp., 873 F.2d 281 (11th Cir. 1989). · Go Syfert
Prot. Life Ins. Corp. v. Lincoln Nat'l Life Ins. Corp., 873 F.2d 281 (11th Cir. 1989). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
45 citation events (12 in the last 25 years) across 19 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Georgia Casualty & Surety Co. v. Excalibur Reinsurance Corp. (gand, 2014-03-13)
Treatment trajectory · 1989 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1989 2007 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Georgia Casualty & Surety Co. v. Excalibur Reinsurance Corp.
N.D. Ga. · 2014 · confidence medium
Corp., 873 F.2d 281, 282 (11th Cir.1989) (“Parties may negotiate for and include provisions for consolidation of arbitration proceedings in their arbitration agreements, but if such provisions are absent, federal courts may not read them in.”).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC v. Freeman
N.C. Ct. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
Corp., 873 F.2d 281, 282 (11th Cir.1989) (construing § 4 of the Act, which *403 provides for judicially compelled arbitration, to “narrowly circumscribe[]” the power of the federal courts).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Stein
S.D.N.Y. · 2006 · confidence medium
Corp., 873 F.2d 281, 282 (11th Cir.1989); Del E.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lomax v. Woodmen of the World Life Insurance Society
N.D. Ga. · 2002 · confidence medium
Corp., 873 F.2d 281, 282 (11th Cir.1989)(agreeing with several other ■ circuit' courts that a district court may not order class-wide arbitration of claims if the arbitration agreement does not specifically provide the parties with- this form of remedy).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Local 1351 International Longshoremens Ass'n v. Sea-Land Service Inc.
5th Cir. · 2000 · confidence medium
Corp., 873 F.2d 281, 282 (11th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) (stating that “[pjarties may negotiate for and include provisions for consolidation of arbitration proceedings in their arbitration agreements, but if such provisions are absent, federal courts may not read them in”). 6 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Randolph v. Green Tree Financial Corp. (2×)
M.D. Ala. · 1998 · confidence medium
Life Ins., 873 F.2d 281 (11th Cir.1989) (per curiam), the Eleventh Circuit addressed the issue of “whether a district court may consolidate arbitration proceedings if the parties have not provided for consolidation in their arbitration agreements.” Id. at 282.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Champ v. Siegel Trading Company, Inc.
7th Cir. · 1995 · confidence medium
Corp., 873 F.2d 281, 282 (11th Cir.1989) (per curiam) (holding that "the sole question for the district court is whether there is a written agreement among the parties providing for consolidated arbitration"); Del E.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Champ v. Siegel Trading Co.
7th Cir. · 1995 · confidence medium
Corp., 873 F.2d 281, 282 (11th Cir.1989) (per curiam) (holding that “the sole question for the district court is whether there is a written agreement among the parties providing for consolidated arbitration”); Del E.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Gammaro v. Thorp Consumer Discount Co.
D. Minnesota · 1993 · confidence medium
Corp., 873 F.2d 281, 282 (11th Cir.1989) (per curiam); Del E.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Government of the United Kingdom v. Boeing Co.
2d Cir. · 1993 · confidence medium
Corp., 873 F.2d 281, 282 (11th Cir.1989) (per curiam) (“Parties may negotiate for and include provisions for consolidation of arbitration proceedings in their arbitration agreements, but if such provisions are absent, federal courts may not read them in.”); Del E.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Government of United Kingdom of Great Britain v. Boeing Company
2d Cir. · 1993 · confidence medium
Corp., 873 F.2d 281, 282 (11th Cir.1989) (per curiam) ("Parties may negotiate for and include provisions for consolidation of arbitration proceedings in their arbitration agreements, but if such provisions are absent, federal courts may not read them in."); Del E.
cited Cited as authority (rule) P/R CLIPPER GAS v. PPG Industries, Inc.
S.D.N.Y. · 1992 · confidence medium
Corp., 873 F.2d 281, 282 (11th Cir.1989), Fifth Circuit, Del E.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Alan A. Booth, Counter-Defendant v. Hume Publishing, Inc., and the Hume Group, Inc., Counter-Claimants
11th Cir. · 1990 · confidence medium
Corp., 873 F.2d 281, 282 (11th Cir.1989) (construing § 4 of the Act, which provides for judicially compelled arbitration, to “narrowly circumscribe[ ]” the power of the federal courts).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Leroy Baesler v. Continental Grain Company
8th Cir. · 1990 · confidence medium
Corp., 873 F.2d 281, 282 (11th Cir.1989); Del E.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Baesler v. Continental Grain Co.
8th Cir. · 1990 · confidence medium
Corp., 873 F.2d 281, 282 (11th Cir.1989); Del E.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Protective Life Insurance Corporation, Plaintiff-Counterclaim-Defendant-Appellee
v.
Lincoln National Life Insurance Corporation, Defendant-Counterclaim-Plaintiff-Appellant
88-7255.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
May 23, 1989.
873 F.2d 281
Cited by 28 opinions  |  Published

873 F.2d 281

PROTECTIVE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff-Counterclaim-Defendant-Appellee,
v.
LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Defendant-Counterclaim-Plaintiff-Appellant.

No. 88-7255.

United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit.

May 23, 1989.

Robert G. Tate, F.A. Flowers, Birmingham, Ala., for defendant-counterclaim-plaintiff-appellant.

James L. Priester, Cathy S. Wright, Fournier J. Gale, III, Maynard, Cooper, Frierson & Gale, P.C., Birmingham, Ala., for plaintiff-counterclaim-defendant-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

Before VANCE and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges, and ATKINS[*], Senior District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

[*~281]1

Lincoln National Life Insurance Company ("Lincoln") appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment and its order consolidating the arbitration of Lincoln's dispute with appellee Protective Life Insurance Company ("Protective") and the arbitration of claims between Protective and a third party, Munich American Reassurance Company ("Munich"). The only issue we must decide is whether a district court may consolidate arbitration proceedings if the parties have not provided for consolidation in their arbitration agreements. We conclude that it may not.

2

We agree with the reasoning of Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Western Seas Shipping Co., 743 F.2d 635 (9th Cir.1984), in which the court held that under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. sec. 1 et seq., the power of federal courts is "narrowly circumscribed." Id. at 637. Section 4 of the Act provides that if the existence of an arbitration agreement is in issue, the district court shall proceed to try that issue; once the district court is satisfied that an agreement for arbitration between the parties exists, the district court "shall make an order directing the parties to proceed to arbitration in accordance with the terms of the arbitration agreement." 9 U.S.C. sec. 4. The statute limits the power of the court to determining whether a written arbitration agreement exists, and if it does, to enforcing it "in accordance with its terms." Id.

3

As the Ninth Circuit observed, this interpretation of section 4 "comports with the statute's underlying premise that arbitration is a creature of contract, and that '[a]n agreement to arbitrate before a special tribunal is, in effect, a specialized kind of forum-selection clause that posits not only the situs of suit but also the procedure to be used in resolving the dispute.' " Id. (quoting Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co., 417 U.S. 506, 519, 94 S.Ct. 2449, 2457, 41 L.Ed.2d 270 (1974)). Parties may negotiate for and include provisions for consolidation of arbitration proceedings in their arbitration agreements, but if such provisions are absent, federal courts may not read them in.

[*~282]4

We conclude, therefore, that "the sole question for the district court is whether there is a written agreement among the parties providing for consolidated arbitration." Del E. Webb Construction Co. v. Richardson Hospital Authority, 823 F.2d 145, 149 (5th Cir.1987).[1] The agreements between Protective and Lincoln and between Protective and Munich contain their own arbitration clauses, and each clause requires arbitration only between the parties to that agreement. The three parties never agreed to consolidated arbitration. The decision of the district court granting summary judgment and ordering consolidation is VACATED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

*

Honorable C. Clyde Atkins, Senior U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Florida, sitting by designation

1

In holding that the only proper inquiry for the district court is whether the parties have explicitly consented to consolidation in their arbitration agreements, we reject Protective's argument that district courts have the power to consolidate arbitration proceedings under Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. 42(a) and 81(a)(3). See Del E. Webb Constr. Co., 823 F.2d at 149-50