Fee Dispute Hotline
(312) 907-7275

Assisting with High-Stakes Attorney Fee Disputes

The NALFA

News Blog

Category: Fee Doctrine / Fee Theory

Article: Absent Explicit Statutory Language? The American Rule Still Applies

September 6, 2021

A recent article by Jiaxiao Zhang, “Absent Explicit Statutory Language? The American Rule Still Applies,” reports on attorney fee entitlement in patent litigation.  This article was posted with permission.  The article reads:

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated a district court’s award of attorney’s fees under the prevailing party rule but affirmed the district court’s denial of the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office’s (PTO) request for expert witness fees under 35 U.S.C. § 145. Hyatt v. Hirshfeld, Case Nos. 20-2321;–2325 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 18, 2021) (Hughes, J.).  The case involved prolific inventor Gilbert Hyatt and the latest chapter in his battles with the PTO.

Mr. Hyatt is known for his prolific patent and litigation filings (including hundreds of extraordinarily lengthy and complex patent applications in 1995 alone) and for often “’adopt[ing] an approach to prosecution that all but guaranteed indefinite prosecution delay’ in an effort to submarine his patent applications and receive lengthy patent terms.”  After the PTO denied some of his patent applications, Mr. Hyatt elected to pursue a district court appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 145 to challenge the PTO’s decisions.  The district court ordered the PTO to issue some of the patents and awarded Mr. Hyatt attorney’s fees as the prevailing party.  The PTO spent millions of dollars examining Mr. Hyatt’s applications and sought, under §145, reimbursement of its expert witness fees from the case.  The district court denied the PTO’s request for expert witness fees, holding that its shifting of “[a]ll the expenses of the proceedings” to the applicant does not overcome the American Rule presumption against shifting expert fees. The PTO appealed.

The PTO challenged both the award of attorney’s fees and the denial of expert fees.  In an earlier appeal by the PTO, the Federal Circuit held that the PTO correctly asserted prosecution laches as a defense against Mr. Hyatt, which “render[s] a patent unenforceable when it has issued only after an unreasonable and unexplained delay in prosecution that constitutes an egregious misuse of the statutory patent system under a totality of the circumstances.”  Accordingly, the Court vacated the district court’s decision ordering the issuance of patents, and in this appeal, the Court vacated the district court’s holding that Mr. Hyatt is entitled to attorney’s fees—since he is no longer the prevailing party—and remanded for further proceedings.

According to the statute, in an action under § 145, “[a]ll the expenses of the proceedings shall be paid by the applicant.”  However, the Federal Circuit agreed with the district court that the statutory language was not sufficiently explicit to overcome the presumption against fee-shifting under the American Rule and that litigants pay their own fees “unless a statute or contract provides otherwise.”  In doing so, the Court looked at statutory phrasing, dictionary definitions (e.g., Black’s and Webster’s), legislative history, relevant case law and similarly phrased statutes to confirm whether expert fees were specifically and explicitly contemplated as being included by US Congress in the statute.  The Supreme Court of the United States’ 2019 NantKwest decision (that “expenses” under §145 does not invoke attorney’s fees with enough clarity to overcome the American Rule) guided the Court’s analysis as did the many statutes that explicitly list “costs and fees” separately, suggesting that the legislature could have explicitly referenced fees should they have intended.  Having found this high bar to overcome the American Rule not met, the Court affirmed the district court’s denial of expert fees.

Jiaxiao Zhang is an associate at McDermott Will & Emery in Orange County, CA.

Article: New Attorney Fee Law May Be Boon To Florida Property Insurers

September 1, 2021

A recent article by Christine Renella and William Zieden-Weber, “New Fla. Atty Fee Law May Be Boon To Property Insurers,” reports a new law in Florida that amends Florida's attorney fees statutes, Sections 626.9373 and 627.428 of the Florida Statutes, as they apply to property insurance disputes.  This article was posted with permission.  The article reads:

Florida S.B. 76, designed to curb first-party property insurance litigation in Florida, took effect on July 1.  While the bill addresses several critical property insurance topics including roof-surface reimbursement schedules, regulation of contractors, proper notice, the right to inspect, and determination of whether abatement is applicable, the crown jewel of the bill amends Florida's infamous attorney fees statutes, Sections 626.9373 and 627.428 of the Florida Statutes, as they apply to property insurance disputes.

Background to Florida Attorney Fees Statutes

In most jurisdictions in the U.S., each party to insurance litigation pays its own attorney, regardless of the outcome of the litigation.  In fact, a court may only award attorney fees to the prevailing side if authorized by statute or agreement of the parties to the litigation.

Florida, however, is one of the minority jurisdictions that has allowed an insured to recover his or her own attorney fees if the insured prosecutes a lawsuit to enforce an insurance policy for more than a hundred years.  Florida has kept some version of this law on the books since 1893, and it reads in pertinent part as follows, with the underlined text added by S.B. 76:

Upon the rendition of a judgment or decree by any of the courts of this state against an insurer and in favor of any named or omnibus insured or the named beneficiary under a policy or contract executed by the insurer, the trial court or, in the event of an appeal in which the insured or beneficiary prevails, the appellate court shall adjudge or decree against the insurer and in favor of the insured or beneficiary a reasonable sum as fees or compensation for the insured's or beneficiary's attorney prosecuting the suit in which the recovery is had.  In a suit arising under a residential or commercial property insurance policy not brought by an assignee, the amount of reasonable attorney fees shall be awarded only as provided in s. 57.105 or s. 627.70152.

The Florida Supreme Court has historically supported the need for fee and cost reimbursement in the realm of insurance litigation as being deeply rooted in public policy.  The court has given the Legislature deference in this area of the law, recognizing its sentiment on how essential it is to level the playing field between the economically advantaged insurance companies and the individual citizen.  However, practicing Florida attorneys have seen a perversion of this intent play out in recent years.  In first-party coverage disputes specifically, an insured would often file a lawsuit in instances in which the dispute was simply over the scope of damages.

This created a situation in which, as long as an insured prevailed in its lawsuit with a judgment greater than any amount of the insurance proceeds originally paid by the insurer — even $1 — the insured would be entitled to attorney fees.  As such, insureds were often able to leverage larger settlements using the attorney fees statutes.

Section 627.70152 Notice Requirement

Florida's new legislation effectively puts an end to the attorney fees statutes as they pertain to property insurance, which historically established a strong presumption that using a "lodestar fee" to compensate attorneys for property insurance claims was considered sufficient and reasonable.  This presumption is only rebutted in rare and exceptional circumstances with evidence that competent counsel could not have been retained in a reasonable manner.

Instead, S.B. 76 creates a new statute, Section 627.70152, which establishes a scheme for attorney fees structured around a presuit notice requirement.  Now that S.B. 76 has passed, the path to attorney fees for an insured is less certain, and insurers are hopeful that the vast number of suits filed against insurers in Florida every year will decrease.  Specifically, the burden has essentially shifted to an insured to prove entitlement through the imposition of a judgment between 20%-50% higher than the presuit settlement offer in order to obtain fees.

Additionally, the notice requirement provides an additional hurdle for insureds in that a suit may not be filed prior to the issuance of a written notice of intent.  Specifically, the notice statute imposes a notice requirement on claimants, stating that as a condition precedent to filing suit under a property insurance policy, a claimant must provide the insurer with written notice of intent to initiate litigation.  Under the notice statute, this notice must be served by certified mail, return receipt requested, or electronic delivery at least 10 days before filing suit, but may not be served before the insurer has made a coverage determination under Section 627.70131.

The immediate effect of the statute is the prohibition of suit prior to a coverage determination being issued.  This alone will lead to less litigation as insurer's often file suit before the conclusion of the investigation of a claim and issuance of a coverage determination.  Additionally, the statute requires that each notice include the following information: (1) that the notice is being provided pursuant to this section; (2) the alleged acts or omissions of the insurer giving rise to the action;and (3) that the notice has been provided to the insured if represented by an attorney.

In cases in which the notice is provided following a denial of coverage, the notice must include an estimate of damages.  In cases in which the notice is provided following something other than a denial of coverage, the notice must include the disputed amount of damages and a presuit settlement demand itemizing damages, attorneys fees and costs.  The online form used to submit the notice can be found on the civil remedy and required legal notices webpage of Florida's Division of Consumer Services.

The additional information required per the statute including the disputed amount of damage and presuit settlement demand in cases other than a denial of coverage will provide insurers with the requisite information necessary to evaluate the claim prior to suit being filed.  Prior to the imposition of the statute, insureds were able to file suit at anytime without having ever provided insurers with supporting documentation that in many cases would obviate the need for suit altogether. However, after July 1, insurers are in a position to address disputed damages in an attempt to avoid lawsuits.

In response to the notice, an insurer is now required to respond in writing within 10 days.  Specifically, in the response to a notice regarding denial of coverage, the insurer must either (1) accept coverage, (2) deny coverage, or (3) assert the right to reinspect the property within 14 business days.  Conversely, in the response to a notice regarding something other than denial of coverage, the insurer must respond by making a settlement offer or requiring the insured to participate in an appraisal process.

As a check and balance on the presuit process, the notice statute allows a court to dismiss without prejudice any suit in which the claimant failed to provide notice or the presuit period did not properly conclude, again reducing the amount of frivolous lawsuits that insurers are forced to defend.  If a claimant commences an action in a Florida court based upon or including the same claim against the same adverse party that such insured has previously voluntarily dismissed, then the court may order the insured to pay the attorney fees and costs of the adverse party resulting from the action that had previously been voluntarily dismissed.

Finally, the notice statute states that the notice and other documentation is admissible as evidence in a civil action or an alternative dispute resolution proceeding.  The notice and submissions requirements do not limit the evidence of attorney fees, damages or loss that may be offered at trial.  They also do not relieve any obligation that an insured or assignee has to give notice under any other provision of law.  While the notice statute imposes more stringent requirements on policyholders, the effect in practice will likely be a dramatic reduction in the amount of suits filed.  Accordingly, litigation costs for insurers will decrease, while meritorious suits are likely take less time to filter through the courts.

Section 627.70152 Attorney Fees Scheme

Most importantly, the notice statute sets a forth a new scheme for calculating the amount of attorney fees allowed to be awarded, which is based on the difference between the amount ultimately obtained by an insured compared to the amount originally in dispute.  That difference can then result in three distinct scenarios:

  1. The claimant does not recover attorney fees — when the difference between the amount obtained by the insured and the presuit settlement offer by the insurer is less than 20% of the amount in dispute during the presuit notice period, a claimant may not be awarded attorney fees under Sections 626.9373 and 627.428.
  2. The claimant recovers 20%-50% in attorney fees — when the difference between the amount obtained by the insured and the presuit settlement offer by the insurer is between 20%-50% of the amount in dispute during the presuit notice period, a claimant may recover the same percentage of attorneys fees under Sections 626.9373 and 627.428.
  3. The claimant recovers all attorney fees — when the difference between the amount obtained by the insured and the presuit settlement offer is greater than 50% of the amount in dispute at the presuit during the presuit notice period, a claimant the full amount of attorney fees under Sections 626.9373 and 627.428.

With the applicability of fees now based on this mathematical formula, courts will have considerably less discretion to order payment of attorney fees and costs, and insureds will be less inclined to race to the courthouse.  Many Florida practitioners hope that the notice statute will tip the scales in favor of a more balanced scheme for the imposition of attorney fees and costs.  While previously insureds were able to recover fees upon the rendition of a judgment alone, now insureds will be forced to show entitlement through the imposition of a judgment at least 20% higher than the amount in dispute during the notice period.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the notice statute is expected to bring much needed change to the landscape of property insurance litigation in Florida by adding some semblance of balance to a historically hostile environment for property insurers.

Article: Who Pays For Attorney Fees in Litigation?

August 23, 2021

A recent article by Julie Pendleton, “Who Pays For Attorney Fees in Litigation?,” reports on who covers attorney fees in litigation in Washington.  This article was posted with permission.  The article reads:

One of the first questions asked of me by clients when considering litigation is, “Can I make the other side pay for my attorney’s fees?”  In Washington State, the answer to that question is generally no.  This is referred to as the “American Rule.”

Courts have reiterated their support for the American Rule because (1) litigation is inherently a risky proposition, and a party should not be penalized for merely participating in a lawsuit; (2) those without means would be unduly discouraged from pursuing their legal rights if they feared that losing the case would also cost them their opponents’ legal fees; and (3) the cost of proving the amount of legal fees would pose an undue burden on judicial administration.  Blue Sky Advocates v. State, 107 Wn.2d 112, 123, 727 P.2d 644 (1986).

However, there are three exceptions to this rule and Courts can award attorney’s fees where: (1) there is a contractual provision for attorney’s fees, (2) a statute allows for the award of attorney’s fees, and (3) equity allows for attorney’s fees.

Contractual Attorney’s Fees

A litigant can recover attorney fees if the dispute involves a contract that includes a provision that the prevailing party is entitled to recover attorney fees.  It is quite common to see an attorney’s fee provision in adhesion contracts.  The good news is that in Washington, attorney’s fee provisions have to be applied bilaterally, or in other words, even if the contract only provides attorney’s fees provision if Party A wins, the Courts will apply it equally, so whichever party prevails will be entitled to have their attorney’s fees reimbursed by the other side.

While contractual attorney’s fees are enforced as a matter of course in Washington, they do require a “win” to apply.  In some cases where the case ends in a draw or a tie, where both sides lose a little and win a little, the Court may refuse to award fees.  In addition,  most courts will only award “reasonable” attorney’s fees, so an attorney’s fee provision in the Contract should not be treated as a blank check to direct your attorneys to overwork the case.  .

Statutory Attorney’s Fees

In Washington, a party can recover its attorney fees against another party if a law or statute that governs the case provides for the recovery of attorney fees.  There are many types of statutes that include these types of provisions. Examples include parties prevailing on: a Consumer Protection Act claim, an unpaid salary or wages claim, or a discrimination claim. However, each statute is different and should be read carefully.  Some statutes are mandatory while others allow the court to exercise discretion in deciding whether or not to award fees.  Further, some other statutes may only allow a winning plaintiff to recover fees, but not a winning defendant.  For example, if an employer is sued for minimum wage act violations and successfully prevails against the employee, while the employee probably requested the court to pay their fees under the minimum wage act, the employer would not be entitled to a reimbursement of fees at this stage.

Many clients are particularly interested in the frivolous lawsuit statute, which provides for fees and costs if a lawsuit is brought and continued for an improper purpose and is not grounded in fact.  RCW 4.84.0185.  This statute provides attorney’s fees if a litigant is subjected to a lawsuit that is either brought solely to harass or burden the defendant or otherwise is completely fanciful.  However, the standard is high to recover these sort of attorney’s fees as the litigant is required to prove  that the other side was either solely motivated by malice or another improper purpose or that the lawsuit had no chance of winning under any circumstances.  Receiving  attorney’s fees under the frivolous lawsuit statute is difficult, and should never be considered a guaranteed method of recovery.

Equitable Attorney’s Fees

In rare cases, a party can recover attorney’s fees from a party who engages in bad faith litigation conduct.  There are three types of bad faith litigation conduct: (1) pre-litigation misconduct, where a party engages in bad faith conduct that wastes private and judicial resources and forces a legal action to enforce a clearly valid claim or right; (2) procedural misconduct, where a party engages in bad faith conduct during the course of the lawsuit; (3) substantive bad faith, where a party intentionally brings a frivolous clam, counterclaim or defense for an improper motive such as harassment.  While most litigants believe that the other side has engaged in bad faith conduct in some form or another, recovering under this provision is extremely rare.

How does this Impact my Case?

If there is a method to recover attorney’s fees in a case (either by contract or statute), this is vital to discuss early on in the case with an attorney.  Not only can attorney’s fees provisions be used to drive early settlement, but they should also be considered when determining whether or not to bring a lawsuit or counterclaims.

Julie Pendleton is an attorney at Lasher Holzapfel Sperry & Ebberson PLLC in Seattle and a member of the firm’s Business Litigation and Trusts and Estates Litigation practice groups representing individuals and small companies throughout various stages of litigation and dispute resolution.

Article: CA Ruling Shows That Prevailing Party Wins Can Be Pyrrhic

August 22, 2021

A recent Law 360 article by Warren Jackson, “Calif. Ruling Shows That Prevailing Party Wins Can Be Pyrrhic,” reports on a recent court ruling in California on prevailing party issues in fee-shifting litigation.  This article was posted with permission.  The article reads:

In the 1992 buddy movie, "White Men Can't Jump," Rosie Perez's character, Gloria Clemente, said, "Sometimes when you win, you really lose, and sometimes when you lose, you really win."  It provides a rambling life lesson: Victories can be pyrrhic, and even taking an "L" may not make you a loser.

In an interesting and novel recent opinion that would make Gloria proud, a California state appeals court, in affirming an order denying attorney fees to a self-described prevailing party, reaffirmed in a commercial litigation context that determining who's prevailed and is entitled to fees is not always clear.  The case, Harris v. Rojas, was decided on July 20 in the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District.  Justice John Shepard Wiley Jr., who authored the opinion, also gave a special, well-deserved shout-out to the alternative dispute resolution profession.

It's not unusual, particularly in individual discrimination, harassment, and wage and hour cases, for the potential attorney fees award to be substantially greater than the economic damages, e.g., in cases with a plaintiff who is a low-wage earner or who has successfully mitigated damages.  As a result, the settlement value is not simply economic damages, but attorney fees as well.

The policy goals behind statutory awards of attorney fees or fee-shifting provisions are clear.  A virtual guarantee of attorney fees to the prevailing plaintiff, even if the damages are nominal, is a powerful incentive for the plaintiffs bar to represent employees who have fewer means and less power, but were allegedly treated unfairly.  To put a finer point on it, that incentive is also not diminished by what's generally the case — no downside of having to pay a prevailing employer's fees.  More on this dynamic and its impact on mediating cases later, but first, the opinion.

George Harris leased commercial space from Abel Rojas, and the lease had a clause for attorney fees to the prevailing party in the event of litigation.  Harris sued Rojas for breach of contract, among other claims, and Rojas cross-complained for ejectment, breach of contract and nuisance.  There was also a separate unlawful detainer case by Rojas against Harris.  After nearly three years of litigation and a seven-day jury trial, the jury awarded $6,450 to Harris on his breach of contract claim (rather than his requested $200,000). Rojas also was awarded $6,450 against Harris on his negligence claim, and Harris was awarded $500 on his negligence claim against Rojas.

The harm was apportioned at 15% for Harris and 85% for Rojas, so when all the math was done, a net judgment was entered in Harris' favor for $5,907.50 or $5,882.50 — a discrepancy between the actual math result and the judgment, which only the court noticed.  Thereafter, Harris moved for an award of attorney fees under the lease, seeking $296,744.68.  The trial court — California Superior Court in Los Angeles County — denied Harris' motion, ruling there was no prevailing party, citing the California Supreme Court’s 1995 decision in Hsu v. Abbara — if a party obtains a "simple, unqualified victory" in an action with an attorney fee clause, the court is obliged to make an award, but where there is "good news and bad news" for each party in the outcome, there's discretion.  Harris appealed this order.

Justice Wiley, also relying upon Hsu v. Abbara, seized on the obvious: "When the demand is $200,000 and the verdict is $6,450 or less ... the 'victory' is pyrrhic and nobody won."  He went on to clarify, "Reaping merely five or six thousand dollars after spending three years pursuing $200,000 drastically falls short of the goal." Thus, the trial court properly exercised its discretion.

Justice Wiley had an alternative and novel theory for affirming the denial of attorney fees.  Looking to the result in Rojas' unlawful detainer action, where he was awarded some $13,000 or $17,000, "depending on the moment at which one calculates the rent and interest," Justice Wiley aggregated the two results, opining, "This war had two battles.  Harris decisively lost the war."  As Gloria Clemente remarked, "Sometimes when you tie, you actually win or lose."

Writing what could be characterized as a nod to mediators everywhere, Justice Wiley dogmatically declared: Determining a party's true litigation objective is no mean feat.  When the case is strictly about money, the litigation objective is a dollar figure.  The true value of a case is a matter of opinion, and parties normally conceal their true opinion on this vital topic.  That is why we call that look a poker face.  What economists call a reservation price usually is a carefully guarded secret; if the other side perceives this closeted sum, it will offer that amount in settlement negotiations and nothing more. So each side typically bluffs while searching the other side for clues.  Successful mediators use sustained efforts in a confidential setting to extract this private information from both sides.  By discovering previously hidden common ground, a mediator can settle the case.  But this exploration is often difficult, which is why successful mediators can command premium rates.

As mentioned above, courts have waded into the waters of who's a prevailing party in employment cases over the years.  In the seminal Chavez v. City of Los Angeles decision in 2010, the California Supreme Court upheld a trial court's rejection of a fee application under California Fair Employment and Housing Act, where the plaintiff recovered damages of $11,500 — less than the $25,000 that could have been recovered in a limited civil case — and sought an attorney fee award of $870,935.50.

Noting that under FEHA, the prevailing employee should ordinarily be awarded fees unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust, the court held that where a plaintiff brings an unlimited civil case but fails to recover $25,000, the trial court has discretion under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1033 (a) to deny an attorney fees application.  While Chavez is often cited where a verdict is substantially dwarfed by the attorney fee application, in my opinion it has not shifted the landscape dramatically.  Fee applications can be denied in their entirety.  However, more often the result is a reduction in the fee request.

Turning back to the challenge of mediating cases where attorney fee awards are available to a plaintiff, we mediators routinely hear from defense counsel that some plaintiffs lawyers have been incentivized to increase the settlement value of cases by aggressively working them up.  Of course, what may seem like overworking a case to counsel can simply be opposing counsel's diligence and due care.  Justice Wiley seems to suggest successful mediators have a secret sauce for settling cases. While past success can portend future success, unfortunately, there's no guaranteed formula.  One key to success is a tactic that parties often employ — early mediation.  By mediating a case early before significant attorney fees have been incurred, the fee-shifting issue is less problematic.

Of course, early mediations have their drawback in terms of equality of pertinent information or discovery and analysis, so parties should evaluate the relative merits of proceeding early versus later-stage scheduling.  In addition, defense counsel often employ the strategy of threatening or filing a California Code of Civil Procedure Section 998 offer to potentially place the attorney fee award at risk if the recovery at trial is less than the offer and the offer was properly drafted.

My experience, however, is that employers prefer a settlement to a 998 offer, and plaintiffs prefer a reasonable settlement over protracted or scorched-earth litigation.  Finally, the only secret sauce in getting difficult cases resolved might be the four Ps: patience, perseverance, persuasion and proposals from mediators.  But all parties should recognize that the logic and holding of Harris v. Rojas have implications in the employment law context.  And the case should be a reminder that verdict size and prevailing party determinations are necessarily intertwined, and that Gloria Clemente was more lucid that we thought.

T. Warren Jackson is a mediator and arbitrator at Signature Resolution.

AIG Unit Denied Attorney Fees in $7.2M Coverage Win

August 6, 2021

A recent Law 360 story by Ben Zigterman, “AIG Unit Denied Fees Following $7.2M Coverage Win”, reports that an AIG subsidiary has lost its New York federal court bid to have its reinsurer pay more than $300,000 in attorney fees, following a ruling last year that the reinsurer must cover $7.2 million of a $20 million payment to Dole Food Co. to settle pollution claims.  The Insurance Co. of the State of Pennsylvania had sought the fees from London-based reinsurer Equitas Insurance Ltd. under English law, but U.S. District Judge Laura Taylor Swain adopted a magistrate judge's recommendation that the fees are not permitted by New York law.

On U.S. Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave's recommendation last month, ICSOP said it wouldn't object in an effort to speed up Equitas' appeal of the $7.2 million judgment, which is now up to $8.4 million with prejudgment interest.  After ICSOP covered the $20 million settlement of claims over lingering petrochemical pollution at a Dole subsidiary's housing development in California, it asked Equitas to pay $7.2 million of that under two reinsurance policies it had with Equitas.  Judge Swain upheld that request last year under English law.

Because the case was decided under English law, ICSOP asked the court to also apply it to the insurer's attorney fees of about $348,000, as British courts generally require the losing party to pay them, according to the insurer's motion.  ICSOP also said that its attorney fees were "eminently reasonable" compared to the total judgment and that it paid discounted hourly rates of $566.40 and $380 to the two attorneys working on the case.

But while the reinsurance policies were interpreted under English law, Judge Cave found that the question of attorney fees is a procedural matter that should be interpreted under the procedures of the court where the suit was filed.  Under New York law, losing parties in a lawsuit don't pay attorney fees unless a law or contract states otherwise, which was not the case with these reinsurance policies, she said.

"While it may have been predictable that, because the reinsurance policies were sold in the London market, English law would govern their interpretation, the reinsurance policies do not dictate that litigation be brought in an English court, contain a fee-shifting provision, or provide that the English Rule would apply in a United States court in which the parties chose to litigate," Judge Cave wrote.