Karo v. NAU Country Ins. Co., 297 Neb. 798

Matt and Michael Karo held federally reinsured crop‑insurance policies serviced by NAU Country; they claimed "prevented planting" for 2012 acres due to wet conditions.
NAU denied coverage; the parties submitted the dispute to binding arbitration under the policy.
The arbitrator denied the Karos’ claims and issued a final award on January 21, 2014.
The Karos filed a state‑court "Petition for Judicial Review" (treated as an application to vacate under 9 U.S.C. § 10) on May 15, 2014 and served NAU by mail—more than three months after the award.
The Holt County District Court vacated the arbitration award; NAU appealed to the Nebraska Supreme Court. The Supreme Court addressed whether the FAA’s 3‑month notice requirement (9 U.S.C. § 12) is jurisdictional and thus fatal to the Karos’ untimely filing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Karos)	Defendant's Argument (NAU)	Held
Is the FAA applicable?	Arbitration arises from the federal reinsured crop policy; FAA governs.	FAA applies because policies involve interstate commerce.	FAA governs the dispute.
Is the § 12 three‑month notice requirement jurisdictional?	The three‑month rule is a claim‑processing deadline and can be waived.	The § 12 notice/time rule is mandatory and deprives courts of authority if not met.	§ 12’s notice/time requirement is jurisdictional.
Effect of Karos’ failure to serve notice within 3 months	Timeliness issue should be treated as waived if defendant did not raise it below.	Untimely service deprived the district court of power to review/vacate.	Failure to comply with § 12 deprived the court of jurisdiction; defendant need not have raised it.
Validity of district court vacatur on merits (manifest disregard/exceeded powers)	Arbitrator exceeded powers/manifestly disregarded law; vacatur proper.	Arbitrator acted within authority; vacatur improper.	Court did not reach merits because district court’s vacatur was void for lack of jurisdiction.

Hall Street Associates, L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576 (2008) (describing FAA’s streamlined, limited judicial review of arbitration awards)
Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007) (statutory time limits for taking an appeal are jurisdictional)
John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, 552 U.S. 130 (2008) (statutory filing limitations may be jurisdictional and cannot be waived)
Sebelius v. Auburn Reg’l Med. Ctr., 568 U.S. 145 (2013) (clear‑statement rule for when statutory limits are jurisdictional)
Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49 (2009) (FAA creates substantive federal law but does not itself confer federal‑court jurisdiction)
Cortez Byrd Chips, Inc. v. Bill Harbert Constr. Co., 529 U.S. 193 (2000) (read FAA §§ 9–11 together for venue/jurisdictional analysis)
Piccolo v. Dain, Kalman & Quail, Inc., 641 F.2d 598 (8th Cir. 1981) (failure to serve notice under § 12 within three months deprives court of power to review)
Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 559 U.S. 154 (2010) (discussion of jurisdictional terminology and limits)