• 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 / COURTS CONTINUE TO REJECT FAIRLY ROUTINE OBJECTIONS TO ARBITRATION AWARDS

COURTS CONTINUE TO REJECT FAIRLY ROUTINE OBJECTIONS TO ARBITRATION AWARDS

February 20, 2009 by Carlton Fields

Courts have continued to confirm arbitration awards. Recent decisions include one that characterizes the manifest disregard of law doctrine in the Seventh Circuit as being part of the statutory ground relating to the scope of the arbitrators’ authority.

  • Exceeding authority: U.S. Postal Service v. Amer. Postal Workers Union, No. 08-5056 (D.C. Cir. Jan 23, 2009) (reversing vacation of arbitration award because it drew its essence from the parties’ contract); 2M Group, Inc. v. Solstice Mgmt., LLC, Case No. 07-136 (USDC N.D.Cal. Jan. 22, 2009) (award confirmed – arbitrator did not exceed authority); Amer. Employers Ins. Co. v. Robinson Outdoors, Inc., A08-510 (Mn. Ct. App. Feb. 10, 2009) (affirming confirmation of award under Minnesota law – award was within the authority granted to the arbitrators by the contract).
  • Manifest disregard of law: Doerflein v. Pruco Securities, LLC, Case No. 07-738 (USDC S.D.In. Jan 30, 2009) (confirming award, rejecting challenges to how arbitration was conducted and manifest disregard of law; states that manifest disregard of law is an example of an arbitrator exceeding his/her authority under the FAA).
  • Sufficiency of evidence: New York City Dist. Council of Carpenters Pension Fund v. B & A Interiors, Ltd., Case No. 07-5620 (USDC S.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2009) (award confirmed, rejecting argument that it was not supported by the evidence).
  • Binding arbitration agreement: Cline v. Chase Manhattan Bank USA, N.A., Case No. 07-728 (USDC D.Ut. Jan. 29, 2009) (confirmed over objection that there was no binding arbitration agreement).
  • Default: New York City Dist. Council of Carpenters Pension Fund v. Angel Constr. Group, LLC, Case No. 08-9061 (USDC S.D.N.Y. Feb. 2, 2009) (award confirmed – losing party did not appear to contest confirmation).

This post written by Rollie Goss.

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.