152 Conn.App. 60
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- In 2007 Girolametti (owner) and Rizzo (general contractor) signed an AIA-form construction contract containing an arbitration clause governed by AAA Construction Industry Arbitration Rules.
- A dispute arose in 2009; Rizzo filed for arbitration and Girolametti participated in 33 of 35 sessions but stopped attending the last two; the arbitrator issued an award for Rizzo on March 28, 2011.
- Girolametti filed a court action in December 2010 seeking a declaratory judgment that the contract was void for violating professional licensing law (Rizzo allegedly performed engineering services without a license).
- Rizzo moved to confirm the arbitration award; the trial court granted confirmation and entered judgment for Rizzo; Girolametti appealed.
- The trial court and this court examined whether Girolametti preserved the illegality/arbitrability objection and whether his objections were timely under Connecticut arbitration statutes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of underlying contract due to alleged unlicensed engineering | Girolametti: contract illegal and therefore arbitration clause unenforceable | Rizzo: contract allegation does not show arbitration clause itself invalid; arbitration clause is severable | Court: arbitration clause severable; plaintiff challenged contract generally, not arbitration clause specifically, so clause enforceable |
| Preservation of objection to arbitrability | Girolametti: raised illegality at arbitration opening and through counsel; preserved issue | Rizzo: plaintiff participated in arbitration and failed to properly present/press the arbitrability issue; waived objection | Court: plaintiff did not refuse arbitration at outset nor clearly present the issue to arbitrator; preservation requirement not met |
| Timeliness of challenge to award | Girolametti: untimely challenges may be excused when arbitrator lacked authority | Rizzo: plaintiff’s arguments are subject to statutory timeliness rules and prior dismissal of untimely vacatur | Court: MBNA exception inapplicable because plaintiff did not argue nonexistence of arbitration agreement; statutory timing applies and prior untimely vacatur confirmed |
| Judicial review scope of arbitral award | Girolametti: court should consider illegality despite arbitration | Rizzo: judicial review of awards is narrow where parties agreed to arbitrate | Court: judicial review limited; arbitrator’s authority and merits decisions are final absent preserved, timely statutory grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Zelvin v. JEM Builders, Inc., 106 Conn. App. 401 (arbitral decisions reviewed narrowly; arbitrator may decide legal and factual questions)
- MBNA America Bank, N.A. v. Boata, 283 Conn. 381 (untimely objections are excused where no arbitration agreement existed and arbitrator lacked authority)
- C. R. Klewin Northeast, LLC v. Bridgeport, 282 Conn. 54 (arbitration clause is severable from the contract; validity of contract presented to arbitrator)
- Nussbaum v. Kimberly Timbers, Ltd, 271 Conn. 65 (public policy/void-contract arguments do not automatically invalidate an arbitration clause)
- Bridgeport v. Kasper Group, Inc., 278 Conn. 466 (arbitration is informal and arbitrator has broad discretion on issues and procedure)
- Bloomfield v. United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, 285 Conn. 278 (MBNA limited to cases where arbitrator lacked authority because no arbitration agreement existed)
- JCV Investment Group, Inc. v. Manjoney, 56 Conn. App. 320 (party who participates in arbitration generally may waive right to judicial determination of arbitrability)