A recent order in a Florida yacht insurance dispute caught my attention for reasons that go beyond the legal issue. The case is Dragon Yachts, LLC v. London Marine Insurance Services Limited. 1 The dispute involves a yacht insurance policy, a London arbitration clause, and the difficult question of whether a policyholder should be forced to fight an insurance coverage battle thousands of miles from home.

The order was entered by United States District Judge Anne-Leigh Gaylord Moe. I have known Anne-Leigh since she was about eight years old. I know her family. Her father, Cary Gaylord, attended West Point before becoming one of Florida’s prominent eminent domain attorneys. My former wife, Kim Merlin, is Cary’s law partner. The Gaylords are a family where intelligence, discipline, public service, and character are not slogans.

I have a very positive opinion about Judge Moe’s intelligence and character. I say that carefully because judges should be evaluated by their work, not by who knows them. But it is refreshing to see younger, brighter lawyers with very high intelligence and character, and who come from strong families with deep professional values, take the bench. Our legal system needs judges who are smart, disciplined, humble enough to listen, and strong enough to decide. From what I know of Anne-Leigh Gaylord Moe, she brings those qualities to the bench.

The order itself was very brief. London Marine Insurance Services moved to stay the federal litigation because Dragon Yachts had served a notice of arbitration in London. The policy contained a clause calling for arbitration in London under English law and the London Maritime Arbitrators Association terms. London Marine argued that the parties were now involved in arbitration over the same coverage issues and that the federal case should be stayed to avoid duplicative proceedings and inconsistent results.

Dragon Yachts opposed the stay. Its strongest argument was that London Marine was attempting to rely on an arbitration clause found in a policy that London Marine itself had canceled “with effect from inception.” Dragon argued that London Marine could not treat the policy as void when it came to coverage but alive when it came to forcing arbitration in London. Dragon also pointed out that its arbitration notice was made without prejudice and out of an abundance of caution to protect deadlines, not as an admission that London arbitration was the proper forum.

Arbitration clauses in London can be the death of a policyholder’s claim. The issue is not that London lacks capable arbitrators. It has many. The issue is cost, distance, leverage, and practical access to justice. A policyholder that can litigate in its home forum may have a fair chance to prove the claim. Force that same policyholder to retain London counsel, participate in a foreign arbitration, pay arbitrator fees, and fight under unfamiliar procedures, and the economics can become overwhelming. Forum fights can determine the winner or loser in an insurance dispute.

From the insurer or broker side, the argument is equally predictable. The parties agreed to a London arbitration clause. Dragon itself served an arbitration notice. London Marine responded by appointing an arbitrator. Why should a federal court proceed while the London arbitration is moving forward on the same coverage and broker-status issues? Judges do not like two trains running on the same track.

Judge Moe granted the stay. She did not write a lengthy opinion. She did not turn the order into a law review article about separability of arbitration clauses, rescission, waiver, English law, or the Federal Arbitration Act. Instead, she relied on the court’s inherent authority to manage its docket and stayed the case pending resolution of the coverage issues and London Marine’s broker-status issue in the London arbitration.

The brevity of her order may say something about her judicial philosophy. Some judges write to explain every contour of a dispute. Others write only what is necessary to decide the matter before them. This order falls in the second category. It does not appear designed to make new law or invite controversy. It is practical, restrained, and managerial. The judge saw parallel proceedings and decided that the federal case should wait.

Policyholders should pay careful attention to how and where disputes are resolved. London arbitration clauses in marine and surplus lines insurance policies are not harmless boilerplate. They can become powerful procedural weapons for insurers from London. They can move the fight away from the damaged property, away from the policyholder’s witnesses, away from local counsel, and into an expensive forum where the cost of justice may exceed the value of the dispute.

The most interesting legal question remains whether a party can cancel a policy from inception while still insisting that the policy’s arbitration clause controls the forum. This issue deserves careful attention in future cases. If the contract never existed for coverage, why should it exist for arbitration? On the other hand, arbitration law often treats arbitration clauses as separate agreements that may survive attacks on the broader contract.

For now, Dragon Yachts is sailing to London arbitration. The federal courthouse door is not locked, but it has been temporarily closed. Whether that stay proves to be a prudent pause or a costly detour will depend on what happens across the Atlantic.

As for Judge Anne-Leigh Gaylord Moe, I am pleased to see someone of her intellect and character serving on the federal bench. We should want judges who are bright, steady, and grounded. We should want judges who understand that the robe is not a platform for personal grandeur but a duty of public service. Knowing her and her family as I do, I am not surprised that she has reached this position. I am pleased for the legal system that she has.

Thought For The Day

“When a man is tired of London, he is tired of life; for there is in London all that life can afford.”
— Samuel Johnson

1 Dragon Yachts, LLC v. London Marine Ins. Services Limited, No. 6:25-cv-01089 (M.D. Fla. 2025). See Insurer’s Motion to Stay Pending Arbitration and Dragon Yachts’ Motion in Response.