The District Court granted the motion to compel arbitration of a Hurricane Ida insurance dispute. The Court found that the four jurisdictional requirements for compelling arbitration under the New York Convention and the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) were met: there was an arbitration agreement in writing, providing for arbitration in a Convention signatory (the United States) and arising out of a commercial legal relationship, and at least one of the parties was not a US-citizen. The Court denied Evergreen’s argument that the arbitration agreement was invalid because of the choice for court jurisdiction in the service of suit endorsement provision in the insurance policies, and because Evergreen allegedly entered into the arbitration agreement by mistake. The Court held that these defenses did not fall within the limited scope of the Convention’s “null and void” clause and as a result could not be raised this stage – the action to compel arbitration. The Court explained that the “null and void” language must be interpreted to encompass only those situations, such as fraud, mistake, duress, and waiver, that can be applied neutrally on an international scale.