Chubb has won a transatlantic legal fight, with a London judge ordering Fertitta's hospitality group to drop its Louisiana lawsuits and pay up.
The dispute began with COVID-19. In June 2020, Fertitta Entertainment and a cluster of associated hospitality companies - the group behind Golden Nugget casinos, Landry's, Morton's and Rainforest Café - notified their excess insurers, Chubb Bermuda Insurance Ltd among them, of pandemic losses. They wanted business interruption cover for shutdowns ordered by the government.
The policy at the center of it, number FERTITTA01492P03, ran from May 31, 2019 to May 31, 2020. It was clear about where disputes belonged. General Provision 2 read: "Any dispute arising out of or relating to this Policy, or the breach thereof, shall be fully and finally determined in London, England under the provisions of the Arbitration Act of 1996 (as amended or supplemented) by an Arbitration Board composed of three arbitrators."
The same clause said that "All matters relating to the existence of the agreement to arbitrate and the selection of arbitrators shall be determined under the laws of England and Wales."
There was a twist. The followed policy form had once included Clause 32, "Suit against the Company," which would have let Chubb submit to a US court. But the declarations struck Clause 32 "in its entirety from the policy." The US courtroom door was shut on purpose.
The defendants headed to Louisiana regardless. They filed business interruption suits there and, in January 2025, moved to add Chubb. Chubb went to London and won an interim anti-suit injunction - an order telling a party not to litigate elsewhere - on January 31, 2025. The defendants agreed by consent to pause their Louisiana motion while London ran its course.
Then they pressed on in Louisiana anyway. Two days after filing a jurisdiction challenge in London, they obtained a temporary restraining order in Louisiana that barred Chubb from continuing in England or in arbitration. Chubb stood down, and the London hearing set for January 26, 2026 was lost.
Chubb took the fight to the US and won. The Fifth Circuit ruled on December 8, 2025, dismissing the case against Chubb for lack of personal jurisdiction. A rehearing was denied, and the court's mandate on January 20, 2026 lifted the Louisiana injunction.
The defendants opened a fresh Louisiana case in February 2026, arguing the arbitration clause clashed with Louisiana law and that Chubb had waived it. The Louisiana court dismissed that motion in April 2026.
Back in London, the defendants skipped the June 3, 2026 hearing. Their solicitors, Hausfeld & Co. LLP, wrote to say they were not instructed to file evidence or attend. The defendants' main argument was that the clause was invalid under Louisiana Revised Statutes 22:868, that England had no connection to the dispute, and that Louisiana was the right forum.
Mr Justice Bright disagreed. Because the parties had expressly chosen English law to govern whether the arbitration agreement existed, he found the Louisiana statute irrelevant: "Because the parties have expressly agreed that this falls to be determined under English law, Louisiana law is irrelevant, including La. R.S. 22:868." The challenge, he said, "therefore must be dismissed."
With a valid agreement in place, the judge granted final anti-suit relief, including a mandatory order requiring the defendants to procure dismissal of their claims against Chubb in the third Louisiana case. He gave them until June 19, 2026.
Then came the money. The judge awarded Chubb US$709,052.88 in damages for the costs of resisting the Louisiana proceedings from August 15, 2025, noting the defendants could have challenged the figure and did not. He assessed the costs of the English action at £444,516.16 on the indemnity basis - about 70% of Chubb's total.
The tone had been combative. In correspondence put before the court, the defendants' side had branded Chubb's use of "the threat of civil fines and criminal charges" to compel London arbitration as "a breach of Louisiana public policy is unprofessional, unethical and perhaps even criminal." It did not move the judge.
For insurers, the lesson is plain. A well-drafted London arbitration clause, with English law governing whether the agreement exists, held up against a sustained, multi-front fight in US courts - and the insurer recovered both its US legal spend and its English costs from the insureds who breached it.
