In <span class="news-text_italic-underline">Chubb Bermuda Insurance Ltd v Fertitta Entertainment, Inc and others [2026] EWHC 1392 (Comm)</span>, the English Commercial Court granted a final anti-suit injunction, dismissed the defendants’ challenge to the Court’s jurisdiction and awarded damages for breach of an arbitration agreement.
The dispute arose under an insurance policy issued by Chubb Bermuda Insurance Ltd (“<span class="news-text_medium">Chubb</span>”) to various US respondent businesses, referred to as Fertitta. The policy contained an arbitration clause requiring disputes to be resolved by arbitration seated in London. It also expressly provided that all matters concerning the existence of the arbitration agreement were to be determined under English law.
Fertitta sought to join Chubb to proceedings in Louisiana concerning claims for COVID-19 business interruption losses. In January 2025, Chubb successfully applied without notice to the English courts for an interim anti-suit injunction restraining the Louisiana proceedings.
Despite that injunction and despite a decision of the US Fifth Circuit that the Louisiana courts had no jurisdiction, Fertitta commenced fresh proceedings in Louisiana. Fertitta also challenged the jurisdiction of the English Court on three grounds, including an argument that the arbitration agreement was invalid under Louisiana law. Chubb then sought final anti-suit relief before the English Court, together with damages for breach of the arbitration agreement.
Bright J dismissed the defendants’ jurisdictional challenge, granted the final anti-suit injunction and awarded damages to Chubb. In considering the governing law of the arbitration agreement, the Court applied the principles in <span class="news-text_italic-underline">Enka Insaat ve Sanayi AS v OOO Insurance Company Chubb [2020] UKSC 38</span> and <span class="news-text_italic-underline">UniCredit Bank GmbH v RusChemAlliance LLC [2024] UKSC 30</span>. The Court considered the governing law of the arbitration agreement separately from the governing law of the insurance policy.
Because the parties had expressly agreed that English law would govern matters relating to the existence of the arbitration agreement, Louisiana law was irrelevant to that issue. The defendants’ argument that the arbitration clause was invalid under Louisiana law therefore failed.
The Court also found no strong reason to refuse final anti-suit relief. Fertitta’s argument that Louisiana had a closer connection to the dispute did not justify refusing the injunction. The Court noted that arbitration clauses are often chosen precisely because the selected forum may have no particular connection with the parties or the dispute.
The final anti-suit injunction included a mandatory order requiring Fertitta to procure the dismissal of the Louisiana proceedings. Chubb also succeeded in its claim for damages for breach of the arbitration agreement. As Fertitta did not challenge that claim, the Court awarded Chubb damages representing the legal costs it had incurred in the US proceedings. It also granted Chubb an indemnity for future US legal costs.
In addition, the Court awarded costs in Chubb’s favour on the indemnity basis. The decision reinforces the English courts’ willingness to uphold London-seated arbitration agreements governed by English law, even where foreign mandatory rules may restrict arbitration in the relevant sector. It also highlights the potentially significant financial consequences of pursuing foreign court proceedings in breach of an arbitration agreement.
<span class="news-text_medium">Case:</span> <span class="news-text_italic-underline">Chubb Bermuda Insurance Ltd v Fertitta Entertainment, Inc and others [2026] EWHC 1392 (Comm)</span>, 9 June 2026, per Bright J.
