July 9, 2020

Volume X, Number 191

July 09, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

July 08, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

July 07, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

July 06, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

District of Idaho Rejects Challenges to Arbitration Award

The defendant sought to vacate an arbitration award on the basis of arbitrator misconduct and manifest disregard of the law or, in the alternative, modification of the award.

The defendant argued that the arbitrator committed misconduct by denying its motions to compel, failing to postpone or extend the hearing, excluding testimony from its non-retained experts, and disregarding the defendant’s evidence. The court rejected this argument, stating, “Unless a discovery mandate is found in a statute, contract provision, or the adopted rules, a party to arbitration has no legal right to prehearing discovery.” Pursuant to the parties’ agreements, limited discovery was permitted, but the defendant faulted the arbitrator for failing to compel supplemental discovery when the plaintiff’s discovery responses and 30(b)(6) deponent “purportedly fell short.” Moreover, a denial of discovery is not a basis for vacatur under the Federal Arbitration Act. The court dismissed the remainder of the defendant’s arguments because the arbitrator had acted in accordance with the parties’ agreement and Idaho law.

The defendant next argued that the arbitration award was “so fundamentally flawed in its manifest disregard of the law that it cannot be construed as final, mutual and definite.” The court did not find, nor did the defendant point to, any evidence in the record or the arbitration award to suggest that the arbitrator was “aware of the law and intentionally disregarded it” or that the arbitrator exceeded her powers in how she determined to award attorneys’ fees.

The defendant, in the alternative to vacatur, argued that the arbitration award should be remanded for clarification and modification pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 11 because it was “incomplete, ambiguous and contradictory.” The court stated that while it certainly understood the defendant’s “desire for a more thorough opinion,” the defendant had not demonstrated that a remand for clarification or modification was warranted. The arbitration award was confirmed.

Twin Falls NSC, LLC v. S. Idaho Ambulatory Surgery Ctr., LLC, No. 1:19-cv-00009 (D. Idaho Sept. 23, 2019).

©2011-2020 Carlton Fields, P.A. National Law Review, Volume IX, Number 282


About this Author

Nora A. Valenza-Frost, Carlton Fields, Insurance lawyer

Nora Valenza-Frost represents U.S. and international insurers and reinsurers in arbitration and litigation involving complex claims, coverage and regulatory issues across all lines of business.

Nora provides coverage opinions for claims involving several lines of business, including commercial general liability (CGL), professional liability, directors and officers liability (D&O), contractor’s protective professional indemnity (CPPI), errors and omissions (E&O), excess and surplus lines, property, workers’ compensation, business interruption, life and health, pollution,...