SUPREME COURT DENIES REVIEW OF CASE CHALLENGING PARTY-SELECTED ARBITRATOR
The Supreme Court denied certiorari in Trustmark Insurance Co. v. John Hancock Life Insurance Co., a case involving a challenge to a party-selected arbitrator in a tripartite arbitration (where each party selects an arbitrator, and the two arbitrators select an umpire). We reported earlier on both the federal district court’s decision enjoining the arbitration on the basis that John Hancock’s selected arbitrator was not “disinterested” because of his participation in a prior arbitration proceeding between the same parties (Feb. 8, 2011), and the court of appeals’ reversal of the district court’s decision (May 10, 2010). The court of appeals held the district court erred in holding that John Hancock’s arbitrator was not “disinterested” because he had knowledge of the parties’ prior arbitration, and further erred in determining that the arbitration panel lacked the power to construe a confidentiality agreement that the parties had reached during the first arbitration proceeding. Trustmark Insurance Co. v. John Hancock Life Insurance Co., No. 09-3682 (7th Cir. Jan. 6, 2011), cert. denied 79 U.S.L.W. 3594 (U.S. May 16, 2011) (No. 10-1213).
This post written by Ben Seessel.
