• 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 ROUND UP

ARBITRATION ROUND UP

June 27, 2013 by Carlton Fields

Manifest Disregard

HET-JV v. Weston Solutions, Inc., No. 13-100 (USDC E.D. Pa. June 4, 2013) (vacatur denied for ICDR interim award on liability, no manifest disregard, arbitrators did not imperfectly execute powers. Confirmation also denied as premature prior to damages phase of arbitration)

Smith v. Servicemaster Holding Corp., No. 2:11-cv-02943 (USDC W.D. Tenn. May 21, 2013) (vacatur denied where arbitrator ruled that arbitration could proceed on class-wide basis, ruling did not exceed powers, and was not in manifest disregard of the law).

A&G Coal Corp. v. Integrity Coal Sales, Inc., No. 12 Civ. 5293 (USDC S.D.N.Y. May 21, 2013) (vacatur denied, no manifest disregard, arbitrator did not exceed scope of authority).

C-Sculptures, LLC v. Brown, No. 2011-195907 (S.C. May 8, 2013) (affirmation of award reversed by South Carolina Supreme Court, finding award reflected manifest disregard of the law, as arbitrator had been apprised of applicable law and improperly failed to grant respondent’s motion to dimiss)

Exceeding or Imperfectly Executing Powers

Langlais v. Pennmont Benefit Services, Inc., No. 12-3234 (3d Cir. June 7, 2013) (affirming confirmation of arbitration award, arbitrator did not exceed powers, claims were within the scope of arbitration).

Award Exceeds Scope of Submission

Chevron Corp. v. Republic of Ecuador, No. 12-1247 (USDC D.C. June 6, 2013) (confirming award under New York Convention, finding the award was within the scope of the submission).

Marker Volkl (Int’l) GMBH v. Epic Sports Int’l, Inc., No. 12 Civ. 8729 (USDC S.D.N.Y. May 1, 2013) (denying vacatur of foreign award under New York Convention for failure to establish any of the enumerated bases for vacatur, award was within scope of submission).

Award Result of Fraud, Deceit

Meeks v. Host International, Inc., No. 11-17928 (9th Cir. May 22, 2013) (vacatur denied to pro se plaintiff from arbitration award against her in employment termination case, as no fraud, deceit or bad faith demonstrated in arbitration award).

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.