194 Conn.App. 519
Conn. App. Ct.2019Background
- Plaintiff (property owner) leased marina property to Four Mile River Marina, which contracted with defendant Washburn to build a bulkhead; plaintiff was a third‑party beneficiary of that construction contract.
- Bulkhead failed soon after completion; plaintiff sued Washburn for negligence, misrepresentation, and CUTPA.
- Trial court stayed the suit for arbitration under the contract’s arbitration clause; parties executed an ad hoc arbitration retainer with Elaine Gordon (no administering organization or reference to AAA rules).
- Arbitrator found defendant negligent, awarded $275,607 (including fees).
- Defendant filed a demand for a trial de novo; plaintiff applied to confirm the award; trial court denied the demand and confirmed the award.
- On appeal defendant argued: (1) arbitrator failed to take statutory oath; (2) plaintiff failed to file required documents to confirm; and (3) arbitrator exceeded powers/manifestly disregarded law (§ 52‑418(a)(4)).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to take statutory oath (§ 52‑414(d)) or failure to file required documents (§ 52‑421(a)) warrants vacatur | Asselin: issues were not raised before trial court and thus are forfeited; confirmation proper | Washburn: oath and filing defects void/require vacatur | Court: claims not preserved at trial; appellate review declined |
| Whether arbitrator exceeded powers by failing to apply AAA construction industry rules | Asselin: arbitration agreement was ad hoc and contained no rules; arbitrator need not apply AAA rules | Washburn: parties’ contract incorporated AAA rules; arbitrator exceeded authority by not following them | Court: arbitration agreement contained no reference to AAA rules; arbitrator did not exceed powers |
| Whether arbitrator manifestly disregarded law or ignored contract obligations (§ 52‑418(a)(4)) | Asselin: arbitrator considered contractual duties and addressed obligations in award | Washburn: arbitrator ignored parties’ contract (e.g., labornly vs. material obligations) and misapplied law | Court: record shows arbitrator considered contract; no egregious/patently irrational rejection of controlling law; award affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Schoonmaker v. Lawrence Brunoli, Inc., 265 Conn. 210 (2003) (preservation requirement for appellate review)
- Harty v. Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., 275 Conn. 72 (2005) (scope of review for unrestricted arbitration submissions)
- Garrity v. McCaskey, 223 Conn. 1 (1992) (manifest disregard standard under § 52‑418(a)(4))
- Industrial Risk Insurers v. Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Ins. Co., 258 Conn. 101 (2001) (courts will not reweigh arbitrators’ factual or legal determinations absent statutory grounds)
- MBNA America Bank, N.A. v. Boata, 283 Conn. 381 (2007) (arbitrator authority derived from parties’ mutual assent can be waived)