A court has an extremely circumscribed role in an action to vacate an arbitration award. Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court has declared that even if a court is convinced that an arbitrator committed a grave error in applying the terms of a contract, it should not vacate the resulting award if the arbitrator even arguably applied the contract provisions. In Bankers Life & Casualty Insurance Co. v. CBRE, Inc., 830 F.3d 729 (7th Cir. 2016), a divided Seventh Circuit held that an arbitration award did not satisfy this deferential standard, and some have concluded that the court expanded the grounds for vacating an award. While the court somewhat uncharacteristically commented on the merits of the petitioner’s breach of contract claim, rather than simply deciding whether the arbitrators applied the contract terms, the court did purport to vacate the award based on one of the limited grounds for doing so—i.e., that the arbitrators exceeded their authority.
Popular Posts
- Dewey & LeBoeuf Post-Mortem Will Likely Drag On
Wall Street Journal - The Guardian: Decision Quicksand
The Guardian - Defining The Role Of The Hospital-Medical Staff Standing Neutral
Richard J. Webb, Healthcare Neutral
- Dewey & LeBoeuf Post-Mortem Will Likely Drag On
Recent Posts
Browse by Topic
ADR Agreements Arbitration Artificial Intelligence Business Circuit-Fifth Class Action Class Waiver Cognitive Compel Conflict Contract Data Decision Analysis Devices Discovery e-Neutral Economics Empirical Employment Family GC Google Healthcare Insurance Intellectual Property Law Firm Law School Litigation Mediation Negotiation Neuroscience News Patent Picture It Settled Practice Predictive Analytics Psychology References SCOTUS Settlement Social Media State-Texas Technology Tort