Alex Silverman represents U.S. and international insurers and reinsurers in complex commercial litigation and arbitration proceedings, including complex insurance coverage litigation and reinsurance issues. He regularly negotiates and advises insurers in a multi-million euro first- and third-instance action in national and federal courts across the country and has also complained about large-scale health and insurance commercial lawsuits on behalf of insurers, including False Claims Act and RICO shares. If the Boyd case can be described as a party that ignores their right to conciliation, then a Vermont case can be described as a party that ignores its right to trial. In Adams v. Barr Law Group, 2018 WL 671444 (Feb. 2, 2018), a law firm attempted to recover unpaid fees from its client as part of an arbitration proceeding. The client took part in an arbitration (without legal advice) for seven months. Then, a week before the hearing, she stated for the first time that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable because the law firm did not fully explain to the client the effects of consent to arbitration. The arbitrator denied the application for release and issued an arbitration award in favour of the law firm. The customer then moved to evacuate the price and lost. On appeal, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that the client waived his right to do arbitration by participating in it in full for seven months, without addressing the issue.
He noted that the requirement “was designed to avoid unnecessary investments in time and resources of this kind.” The decision of 5 September 2018 was also an opportunity for the Court of Cassation to recall the principle of jurisdiction in arbitration. “When a dispute referred to an arbitration tribunal on the basis of an arbitration agreement is brought before a national court, the court must declare itself incompetent, unless the matter has not yet been brought before the arbitration tribunal and the arbitration agreement is manifestly unenable or manifestly inoperable. Arbitration agreements between the entrepreneur and the consumer can only be effectively concluded in the event of an ongoing dispute. In addition, arbitration agreements with consumers must be included in a document signed by the consumer himself. This document cannot contain agreements other than those relating to arbitration. Therefore, it is virtually impossible under Austrian law to enter into an arbitration agreement with a consumer.1 As noted above, the arbitration agreement must identify the parties, existing or future disputes and the legal relationship (contractual or non-contractual) that has spawned or could give rise to the dispute or disputes.