|
Under Washington law, a party alleging evident partiality of an arbitrator must make the allegation “in a timely manner” when learning of “any basis of partiality,” and cannot bring a partiality challenge after the arbitrator reaches a decision, according to the Washington Court of Appeals.
In Hudson Co., Inc. v. King, No. 35601-5-II, 2007 WL 2482150 (Wash. Ct. App. Sept. 5, 2007), King entered into a home remodeling contract with Hudson. The contract contained a dispute resolution provision, requiring mediation of all disputes, followed by binding arbitration if mediation proved unsuccessful.
Later, Hudson filed a court complaint against King for unpaid expenses, but the court compelled the parties to follow the dispute resolution provision in the contract. Hudson and King selected Logerwell as their designated mediator. Before mediation, Logerwell revealed that he was previously acquainted with one of Hudson’s lawyers and one of King’s lawyers. Neither party objected to Logerwell serving as the mediator after these disclosures.
After mediation ended in an impasse, Logerwell was selected by the parties as their arbitrator. Logerwell again disclosed his prior relationships with counsel, and neither Hudson nor King objected at that time.
Logerwell then entered an arbitration award in favor of Hudson. Hudson moved to confirm the award with the trial court. King objected to the award, alleging that Logerwell had exhibited evident partiality. The trial court confirmed the award, and King appealed.
The Court held that King’s motion to vacate the award based on Logerwell’s alleged evident partiality failed because it was not timely. Washington statute requires that a party bringing an evident partiality challenge “must do so in a timely manner… upon learning of any basis of partiality and before the arbitrator makes a decision.” Since the parties acknowledged that Logerwell had fully disclosed his prior relationships with counsel before both mediation and arbitration, and King failed to object on both occasions, King could not now challenge the award after its issuance based on evident partiality.
Subscribe to a free weekly update on ADR case law and
legislation
|