127 Conn. App. 593
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- Arbitration between Knox (plaintiff) and Smith, M.D., LLC, and Smith (defendants) under operating agreement; unrestricted submission; arbitrator Groark awarded Knox roughly $325,000 in July 2009.
- Defendants filed amended application to vacate on August 5, 2009 alleging manifest disregard of law under § 52-418(a)(4).
- Trial court denied vacatur and confirmed the award on October 16, 2009; Knox prevailed in the resulting appeal.
- Appellate court reviews arbitration awards narrowly under unrestricted submission; de novo review is not required for errors of law so long as the award conforms to the submission.
- Court emphasizes manifest disregard is a narrow ground requiring extraordinary lack of fidelity to established legal principles; here no such lack was found.
- Judgments affirm the trial court’s confirmation of the arbitration award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the award may be vacated for manifest disregard under § 52-418(a)(4). | Knox argues no manifest disregard; arbitrator complied with law. | Smith contends the award reflects manifest disregard given the evidence in their favor. | No manifest disregard; award affirmed. |
| Whether the arbitrator exceeded powers given an unrestricted submission. | Arbitrator correctly interpreted and weighed evidence within submission. | Arbitrator exceeded powers by misapplying law to the facts. | Arbitrator acted within powers; no vacatur warranted. |
| Whether judicial review properly defers to arbitrator’s interpretation under unrestricted submission. | Court should defer; arbitrator interpreted facts and evidence. | Court should review for errors of law despite unrestricted submission. | Deferential review applied; no basis to vacate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Harty v. Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., 275 Conn. 72 (2005) (narrow grounds for vacatur; manifest disregard requires extraordinary fidelity breach)
- Garrity v. McCaskey, 223 Conn. 1 (1992) (limits on vacatur for manifest disregard; review is narrow)
- Bridgeport v. Kasper Group, Inc., 278 Conn. 466 (2006) (arbitrator broad discretion; not reviewing evidentiary credibility on appeal)
- Nussbaum v. Kimberly Timbers, Ltd., 271 Conn. 65 (2004) (arbitrators’ authority to interpret agreement provisions involved in the dispute)
- Saturn Construction Co. v. Premier Roofing Co., 238 Conn. 293 (1996) (unrestricted submission; award achieves what arbitrators are authorized to do)
- Comprehensive Orthopaedics & Musculoskeletal Care, LLC v. Axtmayer, 293 Conn. 748 (2009) (arbitrators’ decision final and binding under unrestricted submission; no reweighing of evidence)