• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

  • About
    • Events
  • Articles
    • Treaty Tips
    • Special Focus
    • Market
  • Contact
  • Exclusive Content
    • Blog Staff Picks
    • Cat Risks
    • Regulatory Modernization
    • Webinars
  • Subscribe
You are here: Home / Arbitration / Court Decisions / Confirmation / Vacation of Arbitration Awards / ARBITRATION AWARD ROUNDUP

ARBITRATION AWARD ROUNDUP

July 11, 2012 by Carlton Fields

Following is a roundup of recent opinions on motions concerning the confirmation, vacation and modification of arbitration awards, organized by the issues presented in the motions:

Manifest Disregard

New York City Dist. Council of Carpenters v. Dufour Group, Inc., No. 12-Civ-00173 (USDC S.D.N.Y. April 19, 2012) (granting petition to confirm, no manifest disregard, no evident partiality, proceeding was not “fundamentally unfair”)

Hargrove v. Citigroup, Inc., No. 1:11-cv-07946 (USDC S.D.N.Y. May 9, 2012) (denying petition to vacate, no manifest disregard in age discrimination case)

Broadnax v. LVI Demolition Services, Inc., No. 2:11-cv-03084 (USDC D.N.J. May 31, 2012) (granting motion to confirm award, finding arbitrator’s award in labor dispute was rationally related to Collective Bargaining Agreement, no manifest disregard).

Gomez v. People’s United Bank, No. 3:10-cv-00904 (USDC D. Conn. June 13, 2012) (granting motion to confirm, no manifest disregard in compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorneys fee award against car dealer)

Failure to Hear Pertinent Evidence

Ace American Ins. Co. v. Christiana Insurance, LLC, No. 11 Civ. 8862 (USDC S.D.N.Y. April 12, 2012) (granting petition to confirm, arbitrators did not fail to hear pertinent and material evidence, proceeding was not “fundamentally unfair,” arbitrators did not exceed the scope of the submission, and there was no manifest disregard of the law)

Scope of Arbitration

Homesite Ins. Inc. v. Dhaliwal, No. A131226 (Cal. App. Ct. April 19, 2012) (affirming confirmation of award, arbitrator did not exceed powers, and correctly decided question concerning scope of arbitration)

Harrell and Owens Farm v. Federal Crop Ins. Corp., No. 11-1360 (4th Cir. April 18, 2012) (affirming confirmation of award, arbitrator did not exceed powers in deciding scope of arbitration)

Town & Country Salida, Inc. v. Dealer Computer Services, Inc., No. 11-15430 (USDC E.D. Mich. May 31, 2012) (granting in part motion to vacate or modify, granting in part motion to confirm, vacating award against party who was not a party to the agreement to arbitrate, affirming award against affiliate that was party to the agreement)

Alliance Healthcare Services, Inc. v. Argonaut Private Equity, LLC, No. 11-C-3275 (USDC N.D. Ill. June 12, 2012) (granting motion to confirm in part, denying in part, finding arbitration panel did not exceed scope of submission, and confirming award on that basis, but denying moving party’s claim for post-award interest)

Evident Partiality

Chandler v. Journey Education Marketing, Inc., No. 2:10-cv-00839 (USDC S.D.W.Va May 15, 2012) (granting motion to confirm, no evident partiality)

Stone v. Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc., No. 2:11-cv-5118 (USDC E.D. Pa. May 29, 2012) (denying petition to vacate, denying attorneys fees to prevailing party, no evident partiality in FINRA arbitration where arbitrator failed to disclose husband’s ties to securities industry and insufficient challenge to such failure was made during the arbitration)

Jurisdiction/venue

Kolel Beth Yechiel Mechil of Tartikov, Inc. v. YLL Irrevocable Trust, No. 11-Civ. 7707 (USDC S.D.N.Y. May 25, 2012) (denying motion to remand state court action seeking vacatur which was removed to federal court by prevailing party in arbitration, ordering petitioner to show cause why award should not be confirmed)

This post written by John Pitblado.

See our disclaimer.

Filed Under: Confirmation / Vacation of Arbitration Awards

Primary Sidebar

Carlton Fields Logo

A blog focused on reinsurance and arbitration law and practice by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Focused Topics

Hot Topics

Read the results of Artemis’ latest survey of reinsurance market professionals concerning the state of the market and their intentions for 2019.

Recent Updates

Market (1/27/2019)
Articles (1/2/2019)

See our advanced search tips.

Subscribe

If you would like to receive updates to Reinsurance Focus® by email, visit our Subscription page.
© 2008–2025 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · Disclaimers and Conditions of Use

Reinsurance Focus® is a registered service mark of Carlton Fields. All Rights Reserved.

Please send comments and questions to the Reinsurance Focus Administrators

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.