• 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

Arbitration / Court Decisions

Denial of request to vacate arbitration award due to denial of continuance of final hearing affirmed

June 13, 2006 by Carlton Fields

In a non-reinsurance case, the United State Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed a District Court decision denying a request to vacate an arbitration award, which was based upon the contention that the arbitration panel committed misconduct by denying a request for a continuance of the final hearing that was submitted the day before the scheduled hearing. Laws v Morgan Stanley, 2006 WL 1579542, case no. 05-20626 (5th Cir. Je. 9, 2006).

Filed Under: Confirmation / Vacation of Arbitration Awards

Court of Appeals reverses vacation of arbitration award based upon arbitrator’s qualifications

June 13, 2006 by Carlton Fields

In a non-reinsurance securities arbitration, the United State Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has held that although courts “do not hesitate to vacate an award when an arbitrator is not selected according to the contract-specified method …” any departure from the terms of the parties' agreement in this case was trivial, not warranting vacatur of the arbitration award. Bulko v Morgan Stanley, 1006 WL 1460022, case no. 05-10242 (5th Cir. May 30, 2006).

Filed Under: Confirmation / Vacation of Arbitration Awards

Court of Appeals reverses vacation of arbitration award based upon arbitrator's qualifications

June 13, 2006 by Carlton Fields

In a non-reinsurance securities arbitration, the United State Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has held that although courts “do not hesitate to vacate an award when an arbitrator is not selected according to the contract-specified method …” any departure from the terms of the parties' agreement in this case was trivial, not warranting vacatur of the arbitration award. Bulko v Morgan Stanley, 1006 WL 1460022, case no. 05-10242 (5th Cir. May 30, 2006).

Filed Under: Confirmation / Vacation of Arbitration Awards

Denial of motion to vacate arbitration award due to choice of law affirmed

June 13, 2006 by Carlton Fields

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held in a non-reinsurance case that a District Court correctly denied a motion to vacate an arbitration award on the basis that the arbitration panel “manifestly disregarded the law” by applying Washington law, rather than Arizona law, because the decision was not “completely irrational” and did not constitute a manifest disregard of the law. Parsons v. Polen, 2006 WL 1082820, case no. 04-35654 (9th Cir. Apr. 25, 2006) (opinion not available on Court's web site).

Filed Under: Confirmation / Vacation of Arbitration Awards

Rehearing granted of opinion vacating arbitration award

June 6, 2006 by Carlton Fields

In Positive Software Solutions, Inc. v. New Century Mortgage Corp., No. 04-11432 (Jan. 11, 2006), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (in a case which did not involve reinsurance) affirmed the judgment of a District Court vacating an arbitration award due to the failure of the sole arbitrator to disclose that his law firm served as co-counsel in an unrelated case with counsel for one of the parties in 1990 – 1996. The Court found that the failure to disclose the prior relationship created a reasonable impression of possible partiality that warranted vacating the arbitration award. The evidence was undisputed that the party against which the arbitration award had been entered did not know of the relationship until after the entry of the award. On May 5, 2006, the Fifth Circuit granted a petition for rehearing en banc, setting the matter for argument in September 2006.

Filed Under: Arbitration Process Issues

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 553
  • Page 554
  • Page 555
  • Page 556
  • Page 557
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 559
  • 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.