Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

You are here: Home / Archives for Arbitration / Court Decisions / Confirmation / Vacation of Arbitration Awards

Confirmation / Vacation of Arbitration Awards

ARBITRATION ROUNDUP

by

Class Arbitration

Sutter v. Oxford Health Plans, LLC, Case No. 10-04903 (USDC D.N.J. Feb. 25, 2011) (class arbitration was still required following the Supreme Court’s Stolt-Nielson decision, notwithstanding the omission of the words “class action” in the parties’ arbitration agreement because the arbitrator had determined that the agreement unambiguously expressed the parties’ intent to authorize class arbitration).

Interim Awards

Draeger Safety Diagnostics, Inc. v. New Horizon Interlock, Inc., Case No. 11-mc-50160 (USDC E.D. Mich. Feb. 14, 2011) (confirming interim award for emergency relief ordering defendant to return records, data, and reports; claim was ripe because the plaintiff was likely to be harmed absent confirmation; court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to confirm non-final award of fees because the claim was not ripe).

Arbitrator Disqualification

O’Dowd v. Hardy, No. G04308 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 24, 2011) (defendant’s counsel’s letter to arbitrator, copied to plaintiff’s counsel, containing negative statements about plaintiff did not warrant arbitrator disqualification).

Notice Issues

Selective Ins. Co. v. Coach Leasing, Inc., No. A-4007-06T2 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. June 16, 2008) (reversing orders vacating arbitration awards and remanding for entry of judgment enforcing awards; notifying defendant’s third-party administrator of the arbitration was sufficient notice under the parties’ agreement and New Jersey statute).

Exceeding Authority; Manifest Disregard for the Law

CCent. Mont. Rail v. BNSF Ry. Co., No. 05-00116 (9th Cir. Mar. 18, 2011) (affirming the district court’s confirmation of an arbitration award because the conditions for vacatur were not met; the arbitrators had not exceeded their authority nor manifestly disregarded the law).

Ameser v. Nordstrom, Inc., Case No. 09-0395 (USDC N.D. Tex. Mar. 14, 2011) (denying motion to vacate award; movant failed to demonstrate that the arbitrator was partial, exceeded her powers, demonstrated manifest disregarded for the law, or that the award was obtained by undue means).

Harrell & Owens Farm v. Fed. Crop Ins. Corp., Case No. 09-217 (USDC E.D.N.C. Mar. 23, 2011) (denying motion to vacate award and confirming award; arbitrator did not exceed the scope of his authority by purportedly failing to follow a government agency’s binding interpretation of an insurance policy; award did not fail to draw its essence from the arbitration agreement).

IFA Ins. Co. v. Am. Trucking & Transp. Ins. Co., No. A-1845-09T2 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Mar. 22, 2011) (affirming confirmation of arbitration award; failure of the arbitrator to apply comparative negligence principles did not warrant vacatur; the fact that the arbitration was court ordered and not by agreement of the parties did not alter the narrow scope of judicial review).

Timeliness Issues

Century Indem. Co. v. Clearwater Ins. Co., Case No. 11-1038 (USDC S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2011) (confirming arbitration award because respondent failed to timely move to vacate, modify, or correct the award and finding no other basis for vacating the award).

Am. Ins. Managers, Inc. v. Guar. Ins. Co., Case No. 07-01615 (USDC D.S.C. Mar. 29, 2011) (motion to vacate or modify filed exactly three-months after delivery of the award was timely because the FAA and not state law governed the applicable statute of limitations; denying motion to vacate or modify; award was not “fundamentally unfair” or “irrational” and there was no “evident partiality” by the arbitrator).

This post written by Ben Seessel.

SECOND CIRCUIT REMANDS FOR CONSIDERATION OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION ISSUES WITH RESPECT TO ORDER CONFIRMING CHINESE ARBITRATION AWARD

by

Last year, we reported that the Southern District of New York had confirmed an arbitration award made by the China Maritime Arbitration Commission against Pactrans Air & Sea, Inc. (“Pactrans”), notwithstanding Pactrans’ argument that the award was being challenged before the proper authorities in China. The judgment recognizing the award was subsequently appealed by Pactrans on jurisdictional grounds. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the case, instructing the district court to determine whether it decided the issue of its personal jurisdiction over Pactrans, and, if not, to enter an order to show cause why it should not dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction. China Nat’l Chartering Corp. v. Pactrans Air & Sea, Inc., No. 09-4956 (2d. Cir. Jan. 19, 2011).

This post written by Ben Seessel.

COURT EXERCISES PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER CANADIAN CORPORATION BUT FINDS MOTION TO VACATE PARTIAL FINAL ARBITRAL AWARD IS NOT JUSTICIABLE

by

Pearl Seas Cruises, LLC (“PSC”), a Marshall Islands company whose members are Connecticut residents, petitioned a Connecticut federal district court to vacate a partial final arbitral award issued by a panel of arbitrators in connection with its dispute against Canadian corporation, Irving Shipbuilding Incorporated (“ISI”). ISI moved to dismiss, arguing that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over it and that PSC’s petition was premature because no final arbitration award had been issued yet by the panel. The court held that because ISI’s sales pitch, contract negotiations, and several meetings to resolve issues regarding contract performance occurred in Connecticut, ISI had the required minimum contacts with Connecticut to subject it to the court’s jurisdiction. However, the court held that PSC’s petition was not justiciable because the panel had not yet issued a final arbitral award. Pearl Seas Cruises, LLC v. Irving Shipbuilding, Inc., Case No. 10-1294 (USDC D. Conn. Feb. 9, 2011)

This post written by Ben Seessel.

THIRD CIRCUIT AFFIRMS VACATING ARBITRATION AWARD, WHICH WAS THE “ESSENCE OF MANIFEST DISREGARD”

by

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a ruling vacating an arbitration award in an employment dispute involving a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”). Armstrong County Hospital unilaterally instituted a smoking ban on its property. Its employees’ union disputed that policy, and sought arbitration of the dispute. The arbitrator ruled in favor of the union, finding that the policy unfairly altered the past practice of allowing smoking in designated areas, which was a working condition expected by employees, and which could not be altered unilaterally. The Hospital moved to vacate the award in federal court, on grounds that the arbitrator failed to address key language in the CBA stating that the Hospital’s management rights to institute policy unilaterally was “specifically not limited by existing or ‘prior practices.’” The district court agreed with the Hospital and vacated the award, finding it the “essence of manifest disregard.” The Third Circuit, citing the constraint on courts to “exceedingly narrow” review of such arbitration awards, nevertheless affirmed, finding the arbitrator’s award effectively rewrote the parties’ agreement. Armstrong County Memorial Hospital v. United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Mfg. Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers Int’l Union, No. 10-2495 (3d Cir. March 14, 2011).

This post written by John Pitblado.

ARBITRATION AWARD CONFIRMATION DECISIONS

by

Preclusive Effect of Prior Litigation

Regale, Inc. v. Thee Dollhouse Prods. N.C., Inc., Case No. 10-280 (USDC E.D.N.C. Jan. 20, 2011) (denying motion to vacate and/or modify award and granting motion to confirm award; no manifest disregard of the law; award did not fail to draw its essence from the agreement; court’s decisions in prior tort case did not preclude decision of contract issues subject to arbitration)

Foreign Awards

Int’l. Trading & Indus. Inv. Co. v. Dynacorp Aerospace Tech., Case No. 09-791 (USDC D.C. Jan. 21, 2001) (confirming arbitration award under the FAA and Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the “New York Convention”); manifest disregard standard does not provide a basis for denying confirmation under the New York Convention; arbitrator did not manifestly disregard Qatari law, notwithstanding Qatari high court’s conclusion that the arbitrator failed to follow Qatari law)

Mistake of Law

Brown v. Pulte Home Corp., Case No. 10-mc-201 (USDC Feb. 14, 2011) (granting plaintiffs’ petition to confirm arbitration award in part and denying petition to vacate award in part; arbitrator’s finding of “liability” in liability phase did not bind the arbitrator to hold for plaintiffs on all counts in damages phase; arbitrator’s alleged mistake of law in refusing to order damages under unfair trade practices and consumer protection law beyond the scope of judicial review)

Contech Constr. Prods., Inc. v. Heierli, Case No. 09-01483 (USDC D.C. Feb. 4, 2011) (granting petition to confirm final award and cross-petition to confirm partial award; fact that the arbitrator may have misapplied the law or rules not a basis for vacating the award under the FAA)

Exceeding Authority; Manifest Disregard of the Law

Westminster Securities Corp. v. Petrocom Energy Ltd., Case No. 10-07893 (USDC S.D.N.Y. Jan. 19, 2011) (granting petition to confirm award and denying motion to vacate award; arbitration panel did not manifestly disregard the law in holding that agreement’s tail provision applied to transaction at issue; panel did not lack the authority to adjudicate unjust enrichment claim)

N.J. Bldg. Laborers Statewide Benefit Funds v. GMAC Constr., Case No. 10-6518 (USDC D.N.J. Jan. 31, 2011) (confirming arbitration award requiring that contributions be made to employee trust funds and benefit plans; no evidence to suggest arbitrator acted in manifest disregard of the law or exceeded his authority)

Popkave v. John Hancock Distribs., LLC, Case No. 10-3680 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 7, 2011) (denying petition to vacate award; arbitrators did not exceed their powers, nor manifestly disregard the law by issuing an award against an entity that may not have been the proper party; the party had not sufficiently educated the arbitrators about the law, and did not independently recognize the law, so they could not have manifestly disregarded it)

Bailey v. Northrop Grumman Ship Sys., Inc., Case No. 08-04685 (USDC E.D. La. Feb. 2, 2011) (denying motion to vacate arbitration award; no statutory grounds under the FAA for vacatur—manifest disregard not a basis for vacatur; arbitrator did not exceed his authority)

Weiner v. Commerce Ins. Co., Case No. 10-P-234 (Mass. Ct. App. Jan. 7, 2011) (affirming vacatur of initial arbitration award because the arbitrator exceeded his authority in declaring UIM claimant’s claim as premature and failing to determine damages; affirming confirmation of subsequent award by a second arbitrator appointed by the court)

Contravention of Public Policy

Kiely Constr. Co. v. Util. Workers Union of Am., Case No. 10-4871 (USDC D.N.J. Jan. 3, 2011) (denying motion to vacate award; award drew its essence from the collective bargaining agreement; award did not contravene public policy)

Nat’l Football League Players Ass’n. v. Nat’l Football League Mgmt. Council, Case No. 10-1671 (USDC S.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2011) (granting motion to confirm arbitration award requiring application of Tennessee law to workers’ compensation claims brought in California and denying motion to vacate award; no manifest disregard of the law; not contrary to public policy)

Evidence of Partiality or Corruption

Tysinger Motor Co., Inc. v. Chrysler Group, LLC, Case No. 10-554 (USDC E.D. Va. Jan. 7, 2011) (denying motion to vacate award; FAA did not apply, special procedure created by Congress governed, which did not provide for judicial review; even so, there was no evident partiality or corruption by arbitrators)

This post written by Ben Seessel.