|
An arbitrator does not exceed his or her authority by merely reaching a contrary conclusion as to the construction of a contract than that reached by one of the parties, according to the Connecticut Appellate Court.
In Cianbro Corp. v. National Eastern Corp., No. 27851, 2007 WL 1774617 (Conn. App. Ct. June 26, 2007), National Eastern appealed the denial of a motion to vacate and the confirmation of an award in favor of Cianbro for construction costs and attorney's fees. National Eastern alleged that the arbitrators exceeded their authority in awarding damages to a third party, awarding amounts for labor and equipment not allowed under the contract, awarding attorney's fees outside the scope of the agreement, not allowing a challenge of the fees award as unreasonable, and failing to award attorney's fees due National Eastern.
The Court affirmed the lower court, finding that National Eastern was asking the Court to substitute the judgment of the Court for the judgment of the arbitrator regarding disputed factual determinations. The Court emphasized that "the remedy determined by an arbitrator will be upheld as long as the remedy draws its essence from the… agreement," and concluded that the awards granted for third-party damages, labor and equipment costs, and attorney's fees "conform[ed] to the broad, unrestricted submission" as to the scope of the agreement.
The Court characterized National Eastern's position as "essentially argu[ing] for a different interpretation of the provisions in the parties' agreement. A difference in opinion as to the construction of the contract does not establish that the panel exceeded its authority."
Subscribe to a free weekly update on ADR case law and
legislation
|