Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

You are here: Home / Arbitration / Court Decisions / Confirmation / Vacation of Arbitration Awards / Various Rulings with Respect to Arbitration Awards

Various Rulings with Respect to Arbitration Awards

by

Attorneys’ Fees:

  • Steinberg v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Case No. 06-02628 (USDC S.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2010) (granting motion to confirm the arbitration award, finding that the arbitrator’s use of the lodestar method, rather than the percentage recovery method, to allocate fees between law firms was not completely irrational).
  • Janney Montgomery Scott LLC v. Tobin, Case No. 07-11197 (USDC D. Mass. Mar. 10, 2009) (allowing a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs following an order denying the petition to vacate the final arbitration award, however, the court modified the amount of attorneys’ fees that respondent was entitled to receive).
  • Amerisure Mut. Ins. Co. v. Global Reinsurance Corp. of Am., Case No. 08-42242 (Ill. App. Ct. Mar. 15, 2010) (vacating part of the order awarding attorneys’ fees because Section 155 of the Illinois Insurance Code does not authorize arbitrators to award attorneys’ fees).

Awards Upheld:

  • Ventress v. Japan Airlines, No. 08-15731 (9th Cir. Apr. 30, 2010) (affirming the confirmation of an award where appellant put forth only unsupported allegations of evident partiality).
  • Omnicare, Inc. v. RxSolutions, Inc., No. 08-01254 (9th Cir. Mar. 17, 2010) (rejecting several arguments that the arbitrator exceeded his powers and ruling the district court did not err in denying the motion to vacate).
  • Dunkley v. Mellon Investor Servs., No. 09-3609 (3d Cir. May 4, 2010) (affirming the district court’s denial of the motion to vacate; appellant did not satisfy his burden of demonstrating evident partiality or corruption).
  • Local 4-406 United Steel v. IMTT-Bayonne, Inc., Case No. 09-05380 (USDC D. N.J. Apr. 14, 2010) (denying a motion to vacate; the arbitrator did not exceed the scope of the parties’ submissions in finding that the employee’s termination was warranted based on excessive absences alone and did not disregard applicable law since the non-approved absences alone constituted a sufficient basis for termination).
  • Am. Tower Corp. v. Tri-State Bldg. & Supply, Inc., Case No. 09-3470 (USDC D. Md. Mar. 23, 2010) (dismissing petition to vacate award; the arbitrator, not the court, has the power to determine whether a single arbitrator is appropriate as this determination is one of procedure, not arbitrability).
  • Jamoua v. CCO Inv. Servs. Corp., Case No. 09-13604 (USDC E.D. Mich. Mar. 10, 2010) (granting motion to confirm award and denying application to vacate award; the award, on its face, does not demonstrate manifest disregard for the law).
  • Dallas MTA, LP v. Celltex Cellular, Case No. 06-15412 (USDC S.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2010) (denying the application to vacate part of the award because the court could infer a basis for the panel’s decision finding one defendant personally liable under the contract).
  • D’Adamo v. Erie Ins. Exch., Case No. 479-2008 (Pa. Super. Ct. Apr. 30, 2010) (affirming the judgments entered on the arbitration awards; the panel properly applied credits to the awards pursuant to the exhaustion clause, and the trial court properly refused to vacate or modify the arbitration awards to disallow the credits).
  • Twp. of Irvington v. Coregis Ins. Co., Case No. 2424-08T3 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Apr. 7, 2010) (affirming the trial court’s confirmation of an arbitration award that concluded the insurer was not obligated to provide coverage where the insured, among other things, failed to cooperate in the defense and settlement of a lawsuit).

Mixed Results:

  • New Jersey Reg’l Council of Carpenters v. Heartland Dev. Co., Case No. 09-178 (USDC D. N.J. Apr. 26, 2010) (granting motion to confirm award against one company, and vacating award against other company due to the other company not being a signatory to the collective bargaining agreement, then determining that a hearing on the facts is necessary to hold other company liable under the arbitration agreement).

This post written by Dan Crisp.