The Court examined motions to compel arbitration in an insurance coverage dispute. It granted the motion filed by the insurer defendants (some of which were foreign entities), which were signatories to the insurance policy containing an agreement for arbitration in New York, and denied the motion filed by the broker defendants, who were not. The Court then stayed all claims until the arbitral proceedings concluded in their entirety. In respect of the claims filed against the insurer defendants, the Court dismissed the contention that the arbitration agreement was NULL and void on public policy grounds because it specified that the arbitral tribunal had to be composed of persons employed in senior positions in insurance underwriting or claims, seated in New York and applying New York law, with strict limitations set as to the available categories of damages and recoverable costs. The plaintiff argued instead that it was entitled to trial before a jury in Texas applying Texas law, with the ability to seek punitive, multiple, and consequential damages. The Court explained that the NULL and void clause was limited to standard breach-of-contract defenses capable of being applied neutrally on an international scale—such as fraud, mistake, duress, waiver, and the like. Further, public policy arguments could be raised as grounds for refusal at the enforcement stage.