• Archives
• Categories
• Initial Strategy Discussion Offer
• Videos/Webinars

Archive for the ‘Manifest Disregard of the Agreement’ Category

Manifest Disregard of the Law | Manifest Disregard of the Agreement | Second Circuit Remands Award to Arbitrator for Do-Over

October 25th, 2019 Authority of Arbitrators, Award Vacated, Awards, Challenging Arbitration Awards, Contract Interpretation, Enforcing Arbitration Agreements, Exceeding Powers, FAA Chapter 1, Federal Arbitration Act Enforcement Litigation Procedure, Federal Arbitration Act Section 10, Grounds for Vacatur, Manifest Disregard of the Agreement, Manifest Disregard of the Law, Uncategorized, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Vacate Award | 10(a)(4), Vacate Award | Manifest Disregard of the Law, Vacatur Comments Off on Manifest Disregard of the Law | Manifest Disregard of the Agreement | Second Circuit Remands Award to Arbitrator for Do-Over

Arbitrators are human and occasionally they make awards that cannot be squared with logic and law, and courts may, in appropriate circumstances, vacate those awards as being in manifest the agreement, or in some circuits, in manifest disregard of the law. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit considered such an award in Weiss v. Sallie Mae, Inc., ___ F.3d ___, No. 18-2362, slip op. (Sept. 12, 2019), and solved the problem in a way that imposed minimal costs and delay on the parties and, at the same time, gave effect to the parties’ reasonable contractual expectations, including that the arbitrator would make an award with a colorable basis in the law or the parties’ agreement, not one in manifest disregard of the law or the agreement. It is therefore a good example of a case that promotes arbitration as an alternative to litigation.

Background

W is a student-loan borrower who in 2011 defaulted on a loan issued by S (N is the successor of S, but we shall refer to both as “S”). W gave S her phone number (“Phone Number 1”) when she obtained the loan and consented to S contacting her via an automatic telephone dialing system (“ATDS”). S made ATDS calls to her using Phone Number 1 prior to her default on the loan in 2011.

Also prior to her 2011 default W obtained a second telephone number (“Phone Number 2”) but did not give S consent to contact her on that number via an ATDS.

After W’s 2011 default, S contacted W seven or eight times a day at Phone Number 2 via an ATDS, attempting to collect the debt. S made 774 ATDS calls to Phone Number 2 during the period September 16, 2011 through July 1, 2013.

The Arbitration

A dispute arose between W and S about whether S’s ATDS calls had violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) and W commenced an action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York. The action was stayed after the parties stipulated to arbitration pursuant to an arbitration agreement in a student-loan promissory note.

The Award: Was it in Manifest Disregard of the Law or the Agreement?

Following a hearing an arbitrator made an award granting W $108,000 in statutory damages under the TCPA. But the award held that W was a class member in a class action that S had settled. The class-action settlement (the “Arthur Settlement”) “included as a class member, ‘any person who received ATDS calls from [S] between October 27, 2005 and September 14, 2010.’” Slip op. at 5 (citation omitted).

W did not contend that the calls S made to Phone Number 1 violated the TCPA (W had consented to those calls), and W contended that, accordingly, she was not bound by the settlement, even though she had received ATDS on Phone Number 1 during the specified period. The arbitrator, however, found that argument “‘unpersuasive,’” and “ruled that Weiss was a class member and that ‘the proof was conclusive that [S] provided [W] with the required notice of the settlement and of her rights and obligations under the terms of the settlement.’” Slip op. at 5-6 (citation omitted).

The Arthur Settlement “notice offered class members the opportunity to file a ‘consent Revocation’ document by September 15, 2012; absent such a filing, ‘the ATDS calls would not stop and the borrower’s prior consent to give them [sic] would be deemed to have been given.’” Slip op. at 6 (citation omitted; bracketed text in original).  

While W contended that she was not aware of the Arthur Settlement, S testified that notice was successfully emailed to W.

The agreement implementing the Arthur Settlement featured a general release, “under which class members were ‘deemed to have fully released and forever discharged [S]’. . . from any and all claims and causes of action, inter alia, ‘that arise out of or are related in any way to the use of an [ATDS]. . . used by any of the Released Parties in connection with efforts to contact or attempt to contact Settlement Class Members including, but not limited to, claims under or for violations of the [TCPA].’” Slip op. at 6 (citations omitted; some bracketed text in original).

Even though the general release, to which the arbitrator determined W was bound, deemed W to have “waived ‘any and all’ TCPA claims effective the date of final judgment in the Arthur Settlement action[,]” the arbitrator’s award did not acknowledge the existence of that release. Slip op. at 6-7. “Instead,” said the Court, “the arbitrator interpreted [W]’s failure to submit a consent revocation pursuant to the Arthur class notice as precluding recovery for any calls placed to [Phone Number 2] after the September 15, 2012 deadline but also as permitting recovery for ATDS calls placed to [Phone Number 2] between September 6, 2011, and September 16, 2012.” Slip op. at 7.

The arbitrator awarded TCPA statutory damages in the amount of $108,500 ($500 per call for 217 calls during the applicable period). W moved to confirm the award and S cross-moved to vacate it.

The district court vacated the award, finding that “by neglecting to ‘apply—or even address—an explicit, unambiguous term of the settlement agreement,’ which “clearly and unambiguously bars recovery for claims until and including the date of the agreement,’ the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law.” Slip op. at 7. W appealed.

Continue Reading »

Share this Post on:

• LinkedIn
• Facebook
• Email
• Pinterest
• Tumblr
• X

New Clear and Unmistakable Outcome Exception to the Old Clear and Unmistakable Rule? (Part II)

August 15th, 2019 Arbitrability, Arbitrability | Clear and Unmistakable Rule, Arbitration as a Matter of Consent, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Authority of Arbitrators, Class Action Arbitration, Class Action Waivers, Class Arbitration Waivers, Clause Construction Award, Clear and Unmistakable Rule, FAA Chapter 1, Federal Arbitration Act Enforcement Litigation Procedure, Federal Arbitration Act Section 2, FINRA Arbitration, First Options Reverse Presumption of Arbitrability, Manifest Disregard of the Agreement, Manifest Disregard of the Law, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, United States Supreme Court 1 Comment »

Part I of this post discussed how the Second and Fifth Circuits, in  Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Bucsek, ___ F.3d ___, No. 17-881, slip op. (2d Cir. Mar. 22, 2019), and 20/20 Comms. Inc. v. Lennox Crawford, ___ F.3d ___, No. 18-10260 (5th Cir. July 22, 2019), suggest a trend toward what might (tongue-in-cheek) be called a “Clear and Unmistakable Outcome Exception” to the First Options Reverse Presumption of Arbitrability (a/k/a the “Clear and Unmistakable Rule”).

Under this Clear and Unmistakable Outcome Exception to the Clear and Unmistakable Rule, courts consider the merits of an underlying arbitrability issue as part of their analysis of whether the parties clearly and unmistakably agreed to arbitrate arbitrability issues.

But the Clear and Unmistakable Outcome Exception runs directly counter to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Schein v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., 586 U.S. ___, 139 S. Ct. 524 (January 8, 2019), and thus contravenes the Federal Arbitration Act as interpreted by Schein. 139 S. Ct. at 527-28, 529-31.

This Part II analyzes and discusses how Met Life and 20/20 Comm. effectively made an end run around Schein and considers what might have motivated those Courts to rule as they did.

Making an End Run Around Schein?

When, prior to 20/20 Comm. we wrote about Met Life, we said it “an important decision because it means in future cases where parties have not expressly agreed to arbitrate arbitrability questions, but have agreed to a very broad arbitration agreement, the question whether the parties’ have nevertheless clearly and unmistakably agreed to arbitrate arbitrability questions may turn, at least in part, on an analysis of the merits of the arbitrability question presented.” (See here. )

But after the Fifth Circuit decided 20/20 Comm. this July, in comments we made to Russ Bleemer, Editor of Alternatives, the Newsletter of the International Institute for Conflict Prevention & Resolution (“CPR”)—which were reproduced with our consent in Mr. Zhan Tze’s CPR Speaks blog article about 20/20 Comm. (here)—we expressed the belief that the Fifth Circuit was (whether intentionally or unintentionally) making an end run around Schein, effectively creating an exception to the Clear and Unmistakable Rule.

After analyzing 20/20 Comm. and comparing it to the Second Circuit’s Met Life decision, we concluded that the Second Circuit’s decision also ran counter to Schein.

Schein’s Abrogation of the “Wholly Groundless Exception” to the Clear and Unmistakable Rule

In Schein the U.S. Supreme Court abrogated the so-called “wholly groundless exception” to the Clear and Unmistakable Rule. Prior to Schein certain courts, including the Fifth Circuit, held that even when parties clearly and unmistakably agreed to arbitrate arbitrability questions, courts could effectively circumvent the parties’ agreement and decide for itself arbitrability challenges that it determined were “wholly groundless.”  

The rationale Schein used to jettison the “wholly groundless exception” to the Clear and Unmistakable Rule is incompatible with the rationales the Second and Fifth Circuit used to support their decisions in Met Life and 20/20 Comm.

Under FAA Section 2, the Schein Court explained, “arbitration is a matter of contract, and courts must enforce arbitration contracts according to their terms.” Schein, 139 S. Ct. at 529 (citation omitted). When those contracts delegate arbitrability questions to an arbitrator, “a court may not override the contract[,]” and has “no power to decide the arbitrability issue.” 139 S. Ct. at 529. That is so even where a Court “thinks that the argument that the arbitration agreement applies to a particular dispute is wholly groundless.” 139 S. Ct. at 529.

Schein explained that its conclusion was supported not only by the FAA’s text, but also by U.S. Supreme Court precedent. Citing and quoting cases decided under Section 301 of the Labor Management and Relations Act, the Court explained that courts may not “‘rule on the potential merits of the underlying’ claim that is assigned by contract to an arbitrator, ‘even if it appears to the court to be frivolous[,]’” and that “[a] court has “‘no business weighing the merits of the grievance’” because the “‘agreement is to submit all grievances to arbitration, not merely those which the court will deem meritorious.’” 139 S. Ct. at 529 (quoting AT&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers, 475 U.S. 643, 649–650 (1986) and Steelworkers v. American Mfg. Co., 363 U.S. 564, 568 (1960)).

This “principle,” said the Schein Court, “applies with equal force to the threshold issue of arbitrability[]”—for “[j]ust as a court may not decide a merits question that the parties have delegated to an arbitrator, a court may not decide an arbitrability question that the parties have delegated to an arbitrator.” 139 S. Ct. at 530.

Exception to Clear and Unmistakable Rule? Why the Second and Fifth Circuit Decisions Conflict with Schein

Continue Reading »

Share this Post on:

• LinkedIn
• Facebook
• Email
• Pinterest
• Tumblr
• X

Can Arbitrators Exceed their Powers by Making an Award in Manifest Disregard of the Parties’ Agreement?

April 17th, 2019 Arbitration Agreements, Arbitration as a Matter of Consent, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Authority of Arbitrators, Awards, Challenging Arbitration Awards, Confirmation of Awards, Contract Interpretation, Contract Interpretation Rules, Exceeding Powers, Grounds for Vacatur, Manifest Disregard of the Agreement, Nuts & Bolts, Nuts & Bolts: Arbitration, Outcome Risk, Practice and Procedure, United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, United States Supreme Court, Vacatur Comments Off on Can Arbitrators Exceed their Powers by Making an Award in Manifest Disregard of the Parties’ Agreement?

Suppose arbitrators decide an issue within the scope of their authority but do so in manifest disregard the parties’ contract. Do they exceed their authority by making an award that has not even a barely colorable basis in the parties’ contract or in applicable law?

The answer to that question, is, of course, “yes,” and over the years we’ve discussed in a number of posts how arbitrators can exceed their powers under Federal Arbitration Act Section 10(a)(4) or Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act by making awards in manifest disregard of the parties’ agreement. (See Loree Reinsurance and Arbitration Law Forum Posts here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.) As discussed in those posts, the U.S. Supreme Court has on multiple occasions ruled that commercial and labor arbitrators can exceed their powers by making an award that manifestly disregards—or does not “draw its essence” from—the parties’ agreement. See Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Inc., 130 S.Ct. 1758, 1768-70 (2010); Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter, 133 S.Ct. 2064, 2067, 2068 (2013); Eastern Associated Coal Corp. v. Mine Workers, 531 U.S. 57, 62 (2000); Steelworkers v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593, 599 (1960); Paperworkers v. Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. 29, 38 (1987).

In our April 12, 2019 post (here) we reviewed how it is that the limited review powers courts have to vacate commercial and labor arbitration awards are designed to provide a limited, but very important, safety net to protect parties against egregious, material violations of arbitration agreements. Without that limited protection, the risks associated with agreeing to arbitrate would be intolerably high and parties would be much less apt to opt for arbitration over court litigation.

Courts vacate arbitration awards where arbitrators act outside the scope of their authority by ruling on issues that the parties did not agree to submit to them. That’s what happened in Brock Indus. Servs., LLC v. Laborers’ Int’l Union., __ F.3d ___, No. 17-2597, slip op. (7^th Cir. April 8, 2019), which we discussed in our April 12, 2019 post here.

But to obtain vacatur of an award based on manifest disregard of the agreement, however, an award challenger must satisfy an exceedingly demanding standard. We’ve addressed the parameters of that standard in a number of other posts. (See, e.g., here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Our blog has also tried to give a feel for how Courts apply (or are supposed to apply) the standard by comparing the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Stolt-Nielsen, which held that an award should be vacated for manifest disregard of the agreement, to the Supreme Court decision in Oxford, which held that an award should not be vacated under that manifest disregard standard. (See Loree Reinsurance and Arbitration Law Forum posts here, here, and here.) And from time-to-time we’ve reported on other cases that have applied the standard.

While challenges to awards based on manifest disregard of the agreement are not uncommon, a very large majority of those challenges are either virtually certain to fail or at least highly unlikely to succeed. It is a relatively small universe of remaining, close cases that pose the biggest challenges for parties and courts.

Today we’ll look at one of those close cases, which was decided by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals and explain why the case failed to satisfy the demanding standard, even though, at least at first glance, it may be difficult to square the arbitration award with the parties’ agreement.

Continue Reading »

Share this Post on:

• LinkedIn
• Facebook
• Email
• Pinterest
• Tumblr
• X

Eighth Circuit: Arbitrator did not Disregard Parties’ Missouri Choice-of-Law Provision

August 19th, 2018 Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Authority of Arbitrators, Awards, Choice-of-Law Provisions, Exceeding Powers, Judicial Review of Arbitration Awards, Manifest Disregard of the Agreement, Manifest Disregard of the Law, United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Comments Off on Eighth Circuit: Arbitrator did not Disregard Parties’ Missouri Choice-of-Law Provision

Introduction

Choice-of-Law Provision 1

A choice-of-law provision is as much a part of a parties’ contract as any other, and an arbitrator might manifiestly disregard the parties’ contractual choice-of-law, which might provide grounds for vacating the award under Section 10(a)(4) of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). But, as well-illustrated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eigth Circuit’s decision in Beumer Corp. v. ProEnergy Servs., LLC, ___ F.3d ____, slip op. (8^th Cir. August 8, 2018), the circumstances that might justify such a decision would be very unusual, to say the least.

Beumer Corp. v. ProEnergy Servs., LLC

Choice-of-Law Provision 2

Owner and Contractor had a construction contract that contained an arbitration agreement, limitation-of-liability, provision, and a Missouri choice-of-law clause. The Owner complained that the Contractor’s work was deficient and, accordingly, no payment was due. The Contractor commenced arbitration for the amount due under the contract and the Owner counterclaimed for damages.

The parties disputed the scope and enforceability of their contract’s limitation of liability provision, which stated:

Notwithstanding any of the foregoing or any other term in this Contract, the total liability of Contractor for any loss, indemnity, damage or delay of any kind will not under any circumstances exceed 100% of the Contract Sum.

The contract contained a broad Missouri choice-of-law clause, and provided that a prevailing party could collect its attorney’s fees.

The Award

Choice-of-Law Provision 3

The Arbitrator ruled that the clause was enforceable, that the Contract Sum (i.e., the liability cap) was $699,702.39., and that the terms “loss, indemnity, damage or delay of any kind” did not include the prevailing party’s contractual right to attorney fees. The Arbitrator thus awarded Beumer: (a) $699,702.39 in damages; (b) $191,680.14 in pre-judgment interest; (c) post-judgment interest at 9%; and (d) $916,027.90 in attorney’s fees and expenses.

On its motion to vacate the Award the Contractor did not dispute that the Arbitrator “arguably construed” the limitation of liability clause, but contended that the Arbitrator exceeded its powers by “disregarding” the Missouri choice-of-law clause, because: (a) the Arbitrator relied on caselaw from four jurisdictions outside of Missouri to support his construction of the limitation of liability provision as exclusive of costs and attorney fees, and did not cite any Missouri decisions on this construction question; and (b) the Contractor claimed that the Missouri cases required a cost-inclusive interpretation of the clause, not a cost-plus one.

The Arbitrator did not Disregard the Choice-of-Law Provision

Choice-of-Law Provision 4

Did the Arbitrator exceed his powers by ruling that the limitation of liability clause did not limit liability for contractual attorney fees? The Eighth Circuit, in a well-reasoned decision, said the answer was “no.” Continue Reading »

Share this Post on:

• LinkedIn
• Facebook
• Email
• Pinterest
• Tumblr
• X

The Fourth Circuit: What Constitutes a Final Award and Who Makes the Call?

August 3rd, 2018 Appellate Practice, Arbitrability, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Authority of Arbitrators, Awards, Confirmation of Awards, Exceeding Powers, Federal Arbitration Act Enforcement Litigation Procedure, Grounds for Vacatur, Judicial Review of Arbitration Awards, Manifest Disregard of the Agreement, Manifest Disregard of the Law, United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 1 Comment »

Final Award 2

What constitutes a “final arbitration award” for purposes of the Federal Arbitration Act is important because it bears on whether an award can be confirmed, vacated, or modified under Sections 9, 10, or 11 of the Federal Arbitration Act (the “FAA”). We addressed the basics concerning final awards in a 2009 post, here.

In Northfolk Southern Railway Co. v. Sprint Communications Co., L.P., 883 F.3d 417 (4^th Cir. 2018), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit was faced with the question whether an award (the “Appraisal Award”), convened under an agreement’s appraisal clause, and issued by three appraisers, was a final arbitration award under the FAA. The unusual procedural posture of the case raised an additional, related question: whether under the FAA an arbitration panel, convened under the arbitration provision of the parties’ agreement, had the authority to declare the Appraisal Award to be a final award. That question matters, for if an arbitration panel has that power, then its decision concerning finality is subject only to the very highly deferential review permitted by Section 10 of the FAA. See First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 942-43 (1995); Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter, 133 S. Ct.  2064, 2068-69 (2013).

Concededly with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, we wonder whether a different litigation and appellate strategy might have yielded a different outcome. The Court held that the Appraisal Award was not final, and remanded the matter back to the appraisers. But the Court did not, for the reasons set forth below, definitively answer the “who” question. The Court’s decision that the Appraisal Award was not final was unquestionably correct if one considers from a purely objective standpoint, without deference to the Arbitration Award, which declared that the Award was final.  But the correct outcome would be considerably less certain had the Railroad sought confirmation of the Arbitration Award and urged the Court to accord deference to the arbitrators who made it.

Background: Northfolk Southern Railway Co. v. Sprint Communications Co., L.P., 883 F.3d 417 (4^th Cir. 2018)

Final Award 1

The dispute between Northfolk Southern Railway Co. (the “Railroad” or the “Appraisal Award Defending Party”) and Sprint Communications Co., L.P. (the “Carrier” or the “Appraisal Award Challenging Party”) arose out of a 25-year-term 1987 licensing agreement (the “Agreement”) under which the Carrier’s predecessor licensed from the Railroad’s predecessor the right to use for fiber-optics-cable purposes certain parts of the Railroad’s rights of way. The Carrier renewed that Agreement for an additional 25-year term (the “renewed Agreement term”), and a dispute arose about the renewal price. Continue Reading »

Share this Post on:

• LinkedIn
• Facebook
• Email
• Pinterest
• Tumblr
• X

• Search for:

• Subscribe to Blog via Email

  Enter your email address to subscribe to The Arbitration Law Forum and receive notifications of new posts by email.

  Email Address

  Subscribe

  Join 49 other subscribers

• Recent Posts

  • You Only Get One Shot at Vacatur: The Fourth Circuit Adopts the “Impermissible Collateral Attack” Rule | Center for Excellence in Higher Educ., Inc. v. Accreditation Alliance of Career Schools & Colleges, ___ F.4th ___, No. 25-1372, slip op. (4th Cir. Feb. 5, 2026) March 6, 2026
  • When Arbitration-Fee Nonpayment Derails the Process: Tenth Circuit says the Default Lifts the Section 3 Stay, Allowing Litigation to Proceed | Myers v. Papa Texas, LLC, ___ F.4th ___, No. 25-2020, slip op. (10th Cir. Feb. 12, 2026) February 18, 2026
  • VIP Mortgage v. Gates: The Ninth Circuit’s “Legally Dispositive Fact” Doctrine—and a Stolt-Nielsen Parallel January 17, 2026

• Top Posts & Pages

  • 
    Categories
  • 
    Service and Notice of Application to Compel Arbitration | Businessperson’s Federal Arbitration Act FAQ Guide | Nuts and Bolts of Pre-Award Federal Arbitration Act Practice under Sections 2, 3, and 4 (Part III)
  • 
    You Only Get One Shot at Vacatur: The Fourth Circuit Adopts the “Impermissible Collateral Attack” Rule | Center for Excellence in Higher Educ., Inc. v. Accreditation Alliance of Career Schools & Colleges, ___ F.4th ___, No. 25-1372, slip op. (4th Cir. Feb. 5, 2026)
  • 
    Some Things to Consider Seriously Before You Agree to Arbitrate: An Arbitration Award may Direct You to Pay Your Adversary's Attorney's Fees
  • 
    Arbitration Law FAQ Guide: Challenging Arbitration Awards under the Federal Arbitration Act

• Follow Philip J. Loree Jr. on Twitter

  My Tweets

• Categories

  Categories Select Category 1404(a) Transfer of Venue Absolute Pollution Exclusions Access to Records Accumulation of Loss ADR Social Media Aggregate Cover Allocation Allocation of Settlements American Arbitration Association Amicus Brief Submissions Amount in Controversy and Podcasts Anti-Arbitration Statutes Anti-Stacking Provisions Appellate Jurisdiction Appellate Practice Applicability of Federal Arbitration Act Applicability of the FAA Application to Appoint Arbitrator Application to Compel Arbitration Application to Confirm Application to Enforce Arbitral Summons Application to Stay Arbitration Application to Stay Litigation Application to Vacate Appraisal Arbitrability Arbitrability – Equitable Estoppel Arbitrability – Nonsignatories Arbitrability | Clear and Unmistakable Rule Arbitrability | Existence of Arbitration Agreement Arbitral Seat Arbitral Subpoenas Arbitration Agreement Invalid Arbitration Agreement Unenforceable Arbitration Agreements Arbitration and Mediation FAQs Arbitration as a Matter of Consent Arbitration Fees Arbitration Law Arbitration Practice and Procedure Arbitration Provider Rules Arbitration Providers Arbitration Risks Arbitration Situs Arbitrator Selection and Qualification Provisions Arbitrator Vacancy Arbitrator-Imposed Claims Protocols Asbestos-Related Claims Association of Insurance and Reinsurance Run-Off Companies (AIRROC) Attorney Fee Shifting Attorney Fees and Sanctions Authority of Arbitrators Award Confirmed Award Fails to Draw Essence from the Agreement Award Irrational Award Procured by Fraud and Corruption Award Vacated Awards Bad Faith Businessperson’s FAQ Guide to the Federal Arbitration Act California State Courts California Supreme Court Captive Insurance Companies Certificate or Treaty Limits Challenging Arbitration Agreements Challenging Arbitration Awards Charles Bennett Choice-of-Law Provisions Claims Guidelines and Procedures Claims Handling Claims Spot Class Action Arbitration Class Action Waivers Class Arbitration – Class Certification Awards Class Arbitration Waivers Clause Construction Award Clear and Unmistakable Rule Collateral Requirements for Unauthorized Reinsurance Commercial and Industry Arbitration and Mediation Group Commercial Impracticability Confirm Award | Attorney Fees Confirm Award | Exceeding Powers Confirm Award | Manifest Disregard of the Law Confirmation of Awards Conflict between Arbitration Clause and Another Clause Conflict of Laws Conflict-of-Law Rules Consent to Class Arbitration Consent to Confirmation Consolidation of Arbitration Proceedings Construction Industry Arbitration Contract Defenses Contract Interpretation Contract Interpretation Rules Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards Corruption in the Arbitrators Corruption or Undue Means COVID-19 Considerations COVID-19 Contract Defenses CPLR Article 75 CPR Alternatives CPR Speaks Blog of the CPR Institute CPR Video Interviews Death of Arbitrator Default Award Default in Proceeding with Arbitration Definition of Occurrence Delegation Agreements Delegation Provision Disinterestedness Dispute Risk – Frequency and Severity Diversity Jurisdiction Drafting Arbitration Agreements Drafting Mediation Agreements Effective Vindication Doctrine Employment Arbitration Enforcing Arbitration Agreements English Law Environmental Contamination Claims Equal Footing Principle ERISA Estoppel Ethics Events Evident Partiality Exceeding Powers Exemption from FAA Existence of Arbitration Agreement FAA Chapter 1 FAA Chapter 2 FAA Chapter 3 FAA Chapter 4 FAA Preemption of State Law FAA Section 1 FAA Section 10 FAA Section 11 FAA Section 16 FAA Section 2 FAA Section 3 FAA Section 4 FAA Section 401 FAA Section 402 FAA Section 9 FAA Transportation Worker Exemption Federal Arbitration Act 202 Federal Arbitration Act Enforcement Litigation Procedure Federal Arbitration Act Section 1 Federal Arbitration Act Section 10 Federal Arbitration Act Section 11 Federal Arbitration Act Section 12 Federal Arbitration Act Section 2 Federal Arbitration Act Section 201 Federal Arbitration Act Section 202 Federal Arbitration Act Section 203 Federal Arbitration Act Section 204 Federal Arbitration Act Section 207 Federal Arbitration Act Section 3 Federal Arbitration Act Section 4 Federal Arbitration Act Section 5 Federal Arbitration Act Section 7 Federal Arbitration Act Section 9 Federal Courts Federal Policy in Favor of Arbitration Federal Question Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction Feed Final Awards FINRA Arbitration First Department First Options Reverse Presumption of Arbitrability First Principle – Consent not Coercion Follow-the-Settlements/Follow-the Fortunes Foreign Arbitration Awards Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act Forfeiture Formation of Arbitration Agreement Forum Non Conveniens Forum Selection Agreements Fraud Fraud or Undue Means Functus Officio Gateway Disputes Gateway Questions General Grounds for Modifying or Correcting Award Grounds for Vacatur Guest Posts Honorable Engagement House of Lords Imperfectly Executed Award or Powers Impermissible Collateral Attack on Award Independence Injunctions in Aid of Arbitration Insolvency Proceedings Insurance Contracts Insurance Coverage Intended Beneficiaries Inter-American Convention on International Commercial Arbitration Internal Controls International Arbitration International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution (CPR) International Judicial Assistance Judicial Review of Arbitration Awards Jurisdiction Clause Labor Arbitration Labor Law Laches Late Notice Lead Paint Claims Legal Ethics Legislative Developments Life Reinsurance Limitations on Arbitrability LMRA Section 301 LMRA Section 301(a) London Market Long-Tail Claims Look Through Loree & Loree Loree & Loree Arbitration-Law Blogs Loree and Faulkner Interviews Louisiana Supreme Court Making Decisions about Arbitration Managing Dispute Risks Manifest Disregard of the Agreement Manifest Disregard of the Law Marine Products Rule Mass Arbitration Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court McCarran-Ferguson Act Mediation Mediation Agreements Michigan State Courts Modify or Correct Award Moses Cone Principle Motion to Compel Arbitration MPPAA Arbitration Negotiation New Era ADR New Jersey State Courts New York Appellate Division New York Arbitration Law (CPLR Article 75) New York Convention New York County New York Court of Appeals New York State Courts Noncumulation Clauses Nuts & Bolts Nuts & Bolts: Arbitration Nuts & Bolts: Reinsurance or Modify Award Outcome Review Outcome Risk Panama Convention Party-Appointed Arbitrators Personal Jurisdiction Petition or Application to Confirm Award Petition to Compel Arbitration Petition to Enforce Arbitral Summons Petition to Modify Award Petition to Vacate Award Philip J. Loree Jr. Policy Post-Award Federal Arbitration Act Litigation Post-Dispute Arbitration Agreements Practice and Procedure Pre-Answer Security Pre-Award Federal Arbitration Act Litigation Preclusive Effect of Awards Predispute Arbitration Agreements Prejudice Presumption of Arbitrability Procedural Arbitrability Procedural Misconduct Professor Angela Downes Professor Downes Property Insurance Public Policy Punitive Damages Questions of Arbitrability Re/Insurance Mediation Institute Reinsurance Allocation Reinsurance Arbitration Reinsurance Claims Reinsurance Claims Group Reinsurance Contracts Reinsurance Litigation Reinsurance Mediation Reinsurance Social Media Remedies Repeat Players Res Judicata or Claim Preclusion Rescission and Reformation Retrospectively-Rated Premium Contracts Richard D. Faulkner Rights and Obligations of Nonsignatories Russ Bleemer Second Department Section 1 Section 10 Section 11 Section 12 Section 16 Section 1782 Section 2 Section 3 Default Section 3 Stay of Litigation Section 4 Section 4 “Aggrieved” Requirement Section 5 Section 6 Section 7 Section 9 Securities Arbitration Security Requirements Separability Service of Process Severability Sexual Harassment and Sexual Assault Disputes Small and Medium-Sized Business Arbitration Risk Small Business B-2-B Arbitration Small Business B-2-B Mediation South Carolina Supreme Court Sovereign Immunity Sports Arbitration Standard of Review State Arbitration Law State Arbitration Statutes State Courts Statute of Limitations Statutory Interpretation and Construction Stay of Arbitration Stay of Litigation Stay of Litigation Pending Arbitration Stay Pending Appeal Subject Matter Jurisdiction Subpoenas Subscribe Substantive Arbitrability Sudden and Accidental Pollution Exclusions Supreme Court Texas Supreme Court Textualism The Arbitration Law Forum The Federalist Society The Loree Law Firm Third-Party Beneficiaries Time Limit for Vacating, Modifying, or Correcting Award Timing and Number of Occurrences Treble Damages Trigger of Coverage Twitter U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey Unauthorized Reinsurance Uncategorized Unconscionability Uniform Commercial Code Article 2 United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit United States District Court for the District of Columbia United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois United States District Court for the Southern District of California United States District Court for the Southern District of New York United States Supreme Court Utmost Good Faith Vacate Vacate Award | 10(a)(2) Vacate Award | 10(a)(4) Vacate Award | Arbitrability Vacate Award | Attorney Fees Vacate Award | Attorney’s Fees Vacate Award | Corruption Vacate Award | Evident Partiality Vacate Award | Exceeding Powers Vacate Award | Excess of Powers Vacate Award | Existence of Arbitration Agreement Vacate Award | Fraud Vacate Award | Manifest Disregard of the Law Vacate Award | Public Policy Vacatur Vacatur for Conceded Nonfact or Clear Mistake of Historical Fact Venue Video Conference Hearings Waiver of Arbitration

• Archives

  Archives Select Month March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 April 2025 March 2025 January 2025 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 March 2024 February 2024 December 2023 November 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 January 2023 August 2022 July 2022 February 2022 December 2021 November 2021 September 2021 August 2021 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 November 2019 October 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 July 2017 January 2017 November 2016 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 November 2013 October 2013 August 2013 July 2013 March 2013 September 2011 August 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009

• Blogroll

  • ADR Toolbox
  • ArbitrationUSA
  • CPR Speaks
  • Disputing Blog
  • Positively Neutral

• Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

  Please see also the information and links set forth on each footer page of the The Loree Law Firm website of which this blog is a part (http://www.loreelawfirm.com), and in the disclaimer that appears in the bottom right corner of each post page of this blog.

Disclaimer:
The content of this blog is not intended to be legal advice and should not be construed as such. The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The Loree Law Firm or any of its current or former clients.