• 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 / SECOND CIRCUIT VACATES CONFIRMATION OF ORIGINAL ARBITRATION AWARD; REINSTATES AMENDED AWARD

SECOND CIRCUIT VACATES CONFIRMATION OF ORIGINAL ARBITRATION AWARD; REINSTATES AMENDED AWARD

January 28, 2010 by Carlton Fields

Parties to a contract for the sale of steel pipe brought cross-motions to vacate, modify and correct an arbitration award conducted according the International Dispute Resolution Procedures of the AAA’s International Centre for Dispute Resolution. The arbitrator issued an amended award, which was challenged in District Court by both parties. The District Court vacated the amended award and confirmed the original award. Appellant T.Co. Metals appealed the judgment to the Second Circuit arguing that the arbitrator acted in manifest disregard of the law and exceeded his powers. Appellee Dempsey Pipe & Supply filed a motion for fees.

The Second Circuit agreed with the district court’s refusal to vacate the damage award to Dempsey finding that the arbitrator did not manifestly disregard the law in interpreting the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Hall Street Assoc. LLC v. Mattel, Inc., 128 S. Ct. 1396 (2008). The Court determined, however, that the district court erred in applying the functus officio doctrine to the arbitrator as he was acting on the parties’ petitions for reconsideration and revised the award pursuant to his interpretation of the arbitral rules the parties had agreed upon. Accordingly, the Second Circuit vacated the order confirming the arbitrator’s original award and remanded the case so that the amended award may be confirmed. Dempsey’s motion for fees was denied. T.Co. Metals, LLC v. Dempsey Pipe & Supply, Inc., Case No. 08-3894 (2d Cir. Jan. 14, 2010).

This post written by John Black.

Filed Under: Arbitration / Court Decisions, 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.