NH Construction Law
  • Home
  • Blog
  • Links

#20:  Appeals From Arbitration Awards

11/10/2014

0 Comments

 
Last month I blogged on the pros and cons of arbitration vs. litigation of construction disputes, and mentioned that appeals of an arbitrator’s award are somewhat limited, promising some follow up.

Under RSA 542:8, arbitration awards can be corrected or modified for "plain mistake" either of fact or of law.  Correction or modification for misapplying the law is available if the mistake was one which was "apparent on the face if the records and which would have been corrected had it been called to the arbitrator's attention."  Merrill Lynch Futures, Inc. v. Sands, 134 N.H. 507, 509 (1999).  That's a bit more deferential than review of a trial court's errors of law.

Appellate review of an arbitrator’s mistakes of fact is somewhat more limited as well.  When a trial court or jury finds facts based on the evidence presented, the Supreme Court defers to those findings and will not “retry” the case as long as there is some evidence apparent on the record to support the trial judge’s findings.  Review of an arbitrator’s findings of fact is similarly limited; the courts will “defer to the arbitrators' decision if the record reveals evidence supporting it,” Merrill Lynch Futures, Inc. v. Sands, 143 N.H. 507, 509 (1999).  But there is an extra layer of deference to arbitrators’ findings not accorded to a judge or jury.  The Supreme Court “will set aside a jury verdict if it is conclusively against the weight of the evidence . . . Conclusively against the weight of the evidence should be interpreted to mean that the verdict was one no reasonable jury could return.”  Quinn Bros. v. Whitehouse, 144 N.H. 186, 190 (1999).  Not so an arbitration award; a court will not “set aside the decision merely because it believes the arbitrator’s award is against the weight of the evidence,” Masse v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 136 N.H. 628, 632 (1993).

Because "arbitration is a matter of contract and a party cannot be required to submit to arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed so to submit," Appeal of Merrimack County Bd. of Commissioners, 142 N.H. 768, 771 (1998), reversal on appeal is also possible if the arbitrator exceeded his or her authority by deciding a matter not within the scope of the arbitration agreement.  “A judicial challenge to arbitral authority requires the reviewing court to consider both the contract and the arbitral submission,” Lebanon Hangar Associates, Ltd. v. City of Lebanon, 163 N.H. 670, 673 (2012).  “Moreover, an arbitrator's view of the scope of the issue is entitled to the same deference normally accorded to the arbitrator's interpretation of the contract.”  Id.  While some arbitration clauses are broader than others, “In the absence of clearly restrictive language, great latitude must be allowed in the framing of an award and fashioning of an appropriate remedy,” John A. Cookson Co. v. New Hampshire Ball Bearings, Inc., 147 N.H. 352, 361 (2001).   Courts have taken this to heart.  The boilerplate arbitration provision in the AIA General Conditions form A201 (1997 version), referencing arbitration of “[a]ny claim arising out of or related to the Contract,” has been almost universally held to require the contracting parties to arbitrate everything under the sun – including the question of whether a demand for arbitration was timely filed (the most common area of attack on an award for allegedly exceeding the arbitrator’s powers).

The final basis for attacking an arbitration award is for fraud, corruption, or misconduct of the arbitrator.  Since arbitrators are an honest lot, and are typically picked by the parties after they disclose any interest or familiarity they may have with the case or the parties, it will be a rare day when this comes into play.  Suffice it to say that the New Hampshire Supreme Court has never once overturned or affirmed the overturning of an arbitration award on this basis.

If you’re getting the idea that an arbitration award is close to appeal-proof and overwhelmingly likely to be affirmed, you’re getting the right idea!


0 Comments



Leave a Reply.

    Author

    Frank Spinella

    Archives

    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    January 2019
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.