Confirmation / Vacation of Arbitration Awards

A trial court’s judgment confirming an arbitration award and awarding certain pre- and post-judgment interest to the defendant insurance companies was unsuccessfully appealed, the appellate court determining that an earlier remand to the arbitration panel was proper because, among other things, nothing in the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Hall Street Associates, L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc. precluded that procedure. On appeal, the plaintiff contended that the trial court: (1) improperly remanded the matter to the arbitration panel for clarification of its award; (2) improperly confirmed the arbitration award as clarified; and (3) abused its discretion in awarding pre- and post-judgment interest.

On the first point, the plaintiff contended that Hall Street Associates overruled the body of precedent permitting a remand to an arbitration panel for clarification of an award. This contention was rejected, as the issue in Hall Street Associates was whether parties to an arbitration proceeding could, by contractual agreement, supplement the statutory grounds for vacating an arbitration award. Hall Street Associates did not concern the procedure at issue, a remand for clarification of an arbitration award. On the second point, plaintiff argued that the arbitration panel imperfectly executed its powers, so that the clarified arbitration award did not conform to the submission. The appellate court noted, however, that courts will not review the evidence nor, where the submission is unrestricted, will they review the arbitrators’ decision of the legal questions. The submission at issue was unrestricted. On the third point, the plaintiff claimed the trial court abused its discretion in awarding pre- and post-judgment interest. The decision, however, of whether to grant interest is an equitable determination within the trial court’s discretion. The trial court’s reasoning was sound: “Although it does not appear that the plaintiff made its motions and appeals in bad faith, the plaintiff would receive an unfair advantage if it were allowed to retain this money while the defendants were deprived of its use and the opportunity to earn interest upon it for the past six years.” The judgment was confirmed in full. Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Insurance Co. v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s, Case No. AC 30162 (Conn. App. Ct. May 11, 2010).

This post written by Brian Perryman.

In a suit arising out of alleged employment discrimination, Dillard’s Inc. appealed the district court’s decision to vacate an arbitration award to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. At the initial arbitration pursuant to Ms. Barahona’s employment contract, despite drawing an adverse inference against Dillard’s for its failure to produce relevant emails, the arbitrator ruled that Ms. Barahona failed to carry her burden of proof on her discrimination and retaliation claims. Upon Ms. Barahona’s motion, the district court at first remanded the dispute to the arbitrator, but after the arbitrator’s refusal to reconsider the case on jurisdictional grounds, the District Court granted Ms. Barahona’s motion to vacate the award based on Dillard’s fraudulent conduct in failing to produce the emails.

The Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded, holding that Dillard’s allegedly fraudulent conduct – failing to produce the emails – was brought to the attention of the arbitrator who addressed it by drawing an adverse inference against Dillard’s. Accordingly, Ms. Barahona could not meet her burden for vacatur under the FAA and the case should be remanded. Trinidad Suyapa Barahona v. Dillard’s Inc., Case No. 09-31142 (5th Cir. 2010).

This post written by John Black.