The terminated former vice president of claims field operations for a Chubb Corp. unit, who has filed whistleblower litigation against the insurer, must submit to arbitration, says a federal appeals court, in affirming a lower court ruling.

Philadelphia-based ACE American Insurance Co., a Chubb unit, formally offered Anthony Guerriero employment as vice president, claims field operations, in the ACE Private Risk Services Organization in an August 2009 letter, according to Wednesday’s ruling by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia in ACE American Insurance Co. v. Anthony Guerriero.

The letter said a copy of ACE’s arbitration agreement was attached, and directed Mr. Guerriero to sign and return the letter, which he did. ACE said on his first day on the job, Mr. Guerriero was again provided a copy of the arbitration agreement, a document that consisted of three pages, with the first two the policy statement itself and the last page a signature page with the heading “Arbitration Agreement.” It was later learned Mr. Guerriero’s personnel file contained the signature page, but not a copy of the policy.

ACE terminated Mr. Guerriero’s employment in June 2016. Mr. Guerriero contended he was fired for reporting to his superiors that ACE was destroying litigation materials it had been instructed not to destroy or delete. After several months of both parties engaging in settlement negotiations, ACE filed a complaint in U.S. District Court in Newark, New Jersey, to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act.

The next day, Mr. Guerriero filed a complaint in state court of New Jersey charging two counts, one of which was a violation of New Jersey’s whistleblower law, the Conscientious Employee Protection Act.  He then filed a cross motion in U.S. District Court seeking to dismiss the ACE motion to compel arbitration.

The U.S. District Court ruled in ACE’s favor, which was upheld by a unanimous three-judge appeal’s court panel. Mr. Guerriero had contended there was insufficient evidence to conclude he had refused to arbitrate, and he challenged the lower court’s determination he had entered into an enforceable arbitration agreement with ACE, said the ruling.

The district court “relied on facts that were supported by declarations and certifications in the record, which it was free to credit. Based on those facts, the conclusion that Guerriero had refused to arbitrate was fairly reached.”

The district court “correctly concluded that Guerriero agreed to arbitrate any employment-related claims through ACE’s Employment Dispute Arbitration Policy, that Guerriero’s claims are within the scope of the agreement, and that the agreement is enforceable,” said the panel, in affirming the lower court ruling compelling arbitration and enjoining Mr. Guerriero from pursuing his state court action.