• 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 / Archives for Arbitration / Court Decisions / Confirmation / Vacation of Arbitration Awards

Confirmation / Vacation of Arbitration Awards

Tenth Circuit adopts arbitral immunity doctrine

March 1, 2007 by Carlton Fields

In an appeal from an award in an NASD-sponsored arbitration, the Tenth Circuit has joined virtually all other Circuits in recognizing that arbitrators, arbitral forums and arbitral sponsors are immune from liability for actions taken in connection with administering arbitration. Pfannenstiel v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Case No. 04-1274 (10th Cir. Feb. 20, 2007).

Filed Under: Arbitration Process Issues, Confirmation / Vacation of Arbitration Awards, Week's Best Posts

Appellate opinions confirm arbitration awards

February 22, 2007 by Carlton Fields

Three recent appellate opinions confirmed arbitration awards:

  • The Eighth Circuit reversed a District Court Order, remanding for confirmation of an arbitration award.  The District Court had vacated the award on the basis that the Panel's finding that California law applied, and its dismissal of a claim under the Minnesota Franchise Act, violated a fundamental public policy of Minnesota.  The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the applicable standards under the California and Minnesota franchise statutes were virtually identical.  Twin Cities Galleries, LLC v. Media Arts Group, Inc., Case No. 06-1777 (8th Cir. Feb. 9, 2007).
  • On January 27, 2006, the Sixth Circuit entered an opinion affirming the decision of a District Court vacating an arbitration award on the basis that the award did not draw its essence from an applicable collective bargaining agreement.  However, in an en banc opinion, the Court has overruled the appellate panel, reversing and remanding for the entry of an Order confirming the arbitration award.  The basis for the reversal rested upon findings that: (1) the arbitrator was not charged with fraud or dishonesty in making the award; (2) the arbitrator was arguably construing the contract in the award; and (3) the party challenging the award showed nothing more than an error or a “serious error” in the arbitrator's interpretation of the contract.  Michigan Family Resources, Inc. v. Service Employees International Union, Case No. 04-2564 (6th Cir. Jan. 26, 2007).
  • The Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court has affirmed summary judgment against an arbitration claimant in a case arising out of an automobile accident.  An arbitrator dismissed the claim based upon a failure of proof and failure to prove causation.  An appeal was denied under the applicable appeal rules of the American Arbitration Association.  The claimant then filed a Complaint in Court, contending that the respondent in the arbitration had committed fraud.  The court granted summary judgment, finding that to be potentially viable, a fraud claim must allege fraud on the part of the arbitrator rather than a party, and that the Complaint was not timely filed.  The appellate panel affirmed. Brown v. CSC Insurance Services, Docket No. A-2283-05T5 (Jan. 22, 2007).

Filed Under: Confirmation / Vacation of Arbitration Awards

Court defers to AAA’s decision as to finality of arbitration award

February 15, 2007 by Carlton Fields

In a non-reinsurance arbitration under the auspices of the American Arbitration Association, a three member panel signed an award, which the AAA found was not final due to continuing discussions among the members of the panel. Three days later, the panel issued a final award, which the AAA sent to the parties. A dispute arose as to which award should be confirmed. The District Court respected the authority of the AAA to determine the finality of awards, and confirmed the latter award. The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed. The Courts also rejected a contention that the latter award was in manifest disregard of law. Appel Corp. v. Katz, Case No. 02-8879 (2nd Cir. Feb. 2, 2007).

Filed Under: Confirmation / Vacation of Arbitration Awards, Week's Best Posts

Court defers to AAA's decision as to finality of arbitration award

February 15, 2007 by Carlton Fields

In a non-reinsurance arbitration under the auspices of the American Arbitration Association, a three member panel signed an award, which the AAA found was not final due to continuing discussions among the members of the panel. Three days later, the panel issued a final award, which the AAA sent to the parties. A dispute arose as to which award should be confirmed. The District Court respected the authority of the AAA to determine the finality of awards, and confirmed the latter award. The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed. The Courts also rejected a contention that the latter award was in manifest disregard of law. Appel Corp. v. Katz, Case No. 02-8879 (2nd Cir. Feb. 2, 2007).

Filed Under: Confirmation / Vacation of Arbitration Awards, Week's Best Posts

Fifth Circuit articulates evident partiality standard

February 6, 2007 by Carlton Fields

In a software licensing dispute, a sole arbitrator entered an award, only to have the award vacated by a District Court on the basis that the arbitrator had failed to disclose an instance in which he had served as one of many co-counsel in a lawsuit with one of the counsel in the arbitration. The District Court vacated the arbitration award, on the basis that the prior relationship “might have conveyed an impression of possible partiality to a reasonable person.” A panel of the Fifth Circuit affirmed, but in an en banc decision, the full Fifth Circuit reversed, finding that the nondisclosure of “a trivial or insubstantial prior relationship” did not merit vacating the award under the evident partiality standard. The relevant legal standard arises out of a plurality Supreme Court opinion, and the en banc opinion noted a split of the Circuits as to what legal standard for evident partiality comes from the Supreme Court's opinion, with the en banc opinion alinging with the way in which the majority of Circuit Courts had interpreted the opinion. Positive Software Solutions, Inc. v. New Century Mortgage Corp., Case No. 04-11432 (5th Cir. Jan. 18, 2007). There is a prior Reinsurance Focus posting about this case dated June 6, 2006, which includes the Fifth Circuit panel opinion.

Filed Under: Confirmation / Vacation of Arbitration Awards

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 107
  • Page 108
  • Page 109
  • Page 110
  • Page 111
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 115
  • Go to Next Page »

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.