Chubb Bermuda Insurance Ltd v Fertitta Entertainment, Inc [2026] EWHC 1392 (Comm)

Chubb Bermuda Insurance Ltd (“Chubb”) issued a property insurance policy to the Fertitta group of entities. The parties entered into a dispute over the performance of that agreement, which also contained a binding arbitration clause, setting the seat in London and providing for the law of England and Wales to govern disputes about the arbitration agreement.

General Provision 2 expressly provides that all matters relating to the existence of the agreement to arbitrate shall be determined under the laws of England and Wales. It follows that this is a case where the parties have agreed on the governing law of the arbitration agreement: it is English law.

At the same time, another provision of the same Policy specified New York law as the governing law of the contract itself.

The Fertitta defendants pursued coverage proceedings in Louisiana. Chubb then commenced proceedings in the English Commercial Court and sought anti-suit injunctionFor my fellow civil law qualified collegues, here is a workable definition: an anti-suit injunction, in its most typical form, orders a party to cease to pursue, or not to commence, court proceedings abroad. It is backed by the threat of punishment for contempt of court if it is not obeyed. to restrain the Louisiana claims.

First, Fertitta group have pursued insurance proceedings in Louisiana. In response, Chubb started proceedings before a [Court] and was seeking an anti-suit injunction agaisnt the Lousiana proceedings.

In this case, the Fertitta defendants relied on La. R.S. 22:868(A), which bars Louisiana insurance policies from requiring another state or country’s law, or from depriving Louisiana courts of jurisdiction or venue over actions against the insurer.

For quick reference:

A. No insurance contract delivered or issued for delivery in this state and covering subjects located, resident, or to be performed in this state […] shall contain any condition, stipulation, or agreement either:
(1) Requiring it to be construed according to the laws of any other state or country […]
(2) Depriving the courts of this state of the jurisdiction or venue of action against the insurer.

Further, they argued that, as could be gleaned from the facts, (2) there was no connection between the parties’ dispute and the chosen forum: London. To the contrary, (3) the witnesses and evidence were said to be located in the United States, and the defendants argued that Louisiana was the suitable forum.

The case was resolved in a rather straightforward fashion. Mr Justice Bright held that the parties’ consent to arbitration in London, under an arbitration agreement governed by English law, meant that the objections based on the appropriate forum outside the chosen arbitration had fallen away.

Thus, issues (2) and (3) easily fell away. As to the alleged invalidity of the arbitration agreement under Louisiana law, Mr Justice Bright wrote as follows:

Before me, there is a logically anterior question: should this Court apply La. R.S. 22:868? As a Louisiana statute, it is not naturally applicable in England, by this Court. The only basis on which it might apply would be if the arbitration agreement were governed by the law of Louisiana.

The court granted final anti-suit relief, awarded Chubb US$709,052.88 in damages for breach of the arbitration agreement, and summarily assessed English costs at £444,516.16 on the indemnity basis.