Ace Capital Re Overseas Ltd. v. Central United Life Insurance Company

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that the language “any right of action hereunder” was, at least when paired with other more expansive language in the arbitration agreement, broad enough to include a contractual fraudulent inducement claim
• noting that “nearly all of the circuits have now disapproved any 25 heightened pleading standard in cases other than those governed by Rule 9(b)”
• noting that In re Kinoshita has frequently been limited to its facts, is inconsistent with federal policy, and yields questionable authority
• noting that “nearly all of the circuits have now disapproved any 25 heightened pleading standard in cases other than those governed by Rule 9(b)”
• noting that if an arbitration clause is deemed broad and claims asserted “touch matters” within agreement to arbitrate, those claims are subject to arbitration
• noting that “nearly all of the circuits have now disapproved any 28 heightened pleading standard in cases other than those governed by Rule 9(b)”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).