• 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 / RECENT RULINGS UPHOLD ARBITRATION AWARDS ON VARIOUS GROUNDS

RECENT RULINGS UPHOLD ARBITRATION AWARDS ON VARIOUS GROUNDS

May 6, 2009 by Carlton Fields

Manifest disregard of law: Dealer Computer Services, Inc. v. Dayton Ford, Inc., Case No. 08-3508 (USDC D.N.J. April 9, 2009) (granting motion to confirm, finding no manifest disregard of law).

Evident Partiality: Martik Brothers, Inc. v. Kiebler Slippery Rock, LLC, Case No. 08-1756 (USDC W.D. Pa. April 20, 2009) (granting petition to confirm, no evident partiality where arbitrator and plaintiff’s counsel engaged in casual conversation about golf and travel).

Sufficiency of evidence: Campbell v. American Family Life Assurance Co. of Columbus, Inc., Case No. 08-5806 (USDC D. Minn. April 14, 2009) (denying motion to vacate award, finding insufficient evidence submitted to overcome arbitrator’s grant of summary judgment award to defendant, based on unambiguous terms of parties’ insurance contract)

Exceeding authority: Reliastar Life Ins. Co. of New York v. EMC Nat’l Life Co., No. 07-0828 (2d Cir. April 9, 2009) (reversing trial court’s vacatur of portion of arbitrators’ award for attorneys fees against defendant for failing to arbitrate in good faith, finding such an award does not exceed submission, even though agreement required parties to pay own fees and costs); Dupont v. Tobin, Carberry, O’Malley, Riley & Selinger, PC, No. 08-1414 (2d. Cir. April 16, 2009) (affirming district court’s confirmation of award, arbitrators did not exceed authority in finding facts and interpreting agreement); Thule AB v. Advanced Accessory Holding Corp., Case No. 09-91 (USDC S.D.N.Y. April 2, 2009) (denying motion to vacate, reviewing accountant did not exceed authority by applying different methodology than requested by plaintiff).

Miscellaneous confirmations: Schmidt v. Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., Case No. 08-165 (USDC E.D. Va. April 10, 2009) (granting defendant’s motion to confirm, denying several motions by pro se plaintiff on numerous grounds); Mutual Marine Office, Inc. v. Transfercom Ltd., Case No. 08-10367 (USDC S.D.N.Y. April 15, 2009) (granting petition to confirm as defendant failed to raise arguments in arbitration and thus waived them); Jones v. PPG Industries, Inc., Case No. 07-1537 (USDC W.D. Pa. April 27, 2009) (granting motion to confirm arbitrator’s award in favor of employer on discrimination claims on various grounds).

This post written by John Pitblado.

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.