Reinsurance Focus

Seven recent decisions addressed whether arbitration awards should be confirmed or vacated:

• In Choice Hotels International, Inc. v. Shiv Hospitality, LLC, No. 05-2201 and 06-1043 (USCA 4th Cir. June 20, 2007), the Court affirmed a District Court's confirmation of an arbitration award, because a motion to vacate the award was untimely under the Federal Arbitration Act, which provides that an award may be confirmed within one year of its entry, but that a motion to vacate an award must be filed within three months of the entry of an award judgment. The Court confirmed the District Court's application of this rule to confirm the award when the motion to vacate was not filed within the required three month period.
• In Downer v. Siegel, No. 06-30159 (USCA 5th Cir. June 13, 2007), the Court vacated a District Court Order vacating an arbitration award on the basis that the dispute was not subject to arbitration under the arbitration provision of an asset management agreement. The claimants attempted to avoid arbitration by naming the broker individually, instead of the brokerage firm with which they had contracted. The Court of Appeal held that the dispute was arbitrable because it necessarily related to the asset management agreement. The case was remanded for confirmation of the award.
• In Sheet Metal Workers' International Assoc. Local 15 v. Law Fabrication, LLC, No. 06-16185 and 07-10356 (USCA 11th Cir. June 26, 2007), the Court affirmed the confirmation of a labor arbitration award, rejecting contentions that the dispute was not arbitrable and that the arbitration submission was untimely, finding the timeliness claim to be for the arbitrators to decide.
• In Grabowski v. Vital Signs, Case No. 99-5683 (USDC D. N.J. June 8, 2007), the Court confirmed an arbitration award, rejecting claims that an arbitrator exibited evident partiality because: (1) one party's original expert (who was replaced by another expert) joined a firm with which the arbitrator was associated; and (2) the arbitrator was retained as an expert by a party allegedly adverse to defendant's counsel in another pending litigation.
• In Hall Steel Co. v. Metalloyd Ltd., Case No. 05-70743 (USDC E.D. Mich. June 7, 2007), the Court denied a motion to confirm two arbitration awards entered by a London arbitrator on the basis that they were interim, not final, awards, and hence not eligible for confirmation under the Federal Arbitration Act.
• In Glass Service Co. v. Illinois Farmers Ins. Co., No. C1-02-005860 (Minn. Ct. App. June 26, 2007), the Court affirmed the confirmation of arbitration awards despite claims that the arbitrators exceeded their authority: (1) by awarding aggregate damages in multiple individual consolidated claims; (2) by failing to hold a party to its burden of proof as an assignee and under the arbitration rules; and (3) in awarding damages in contravention of the policy language and governing statute, and that the lower court had erred in modifying the awards to add pre-award interest.
• In In re Arbitration of Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Tyco Fire Products, No. 82C806001071 (Minn. Ct. App. May 1, 2007), the Court affirmed the vacation of an arbitration award on the basis that it was procured by undue means, where the record supported a determination that the respondent was excluded from the arbitration proceeding by undue means, in violation of the due process provisions of the Minnesota Arbitration Act.