130 Conn. App. 132
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- In 1984, MDC and CRRA entered a contract for a waste-to-energy facility, including dispute resolution via a tripartite arbitration panel under Article VII.
- Article VII allows each party to appoint an arbitrator, with a third arbitrator to be selected; if they cannot agree, the AAA rules may govern third-arbitrator appointment.
- In 2009 MDC served a notice of dispute and then a formal demand for arbitration; MDC appointed John Droney, and CRRA appointed Richard Bowerman as arbitrators.
- Droney and Bowerman could not agree on a third arbitrator, so they agreed to appoint Judge Alan Nevas as the third arbitrator.
- CRRA objected to Droney’s involvement after appointment; MDC sought to compel arbitration with non-neutral arbitrators, while CRRA urged application of AAA rules requiring neutrality.
- The trial court held that the contract permitted non-neutral party-appointed arbitrators and thus denied equitable relief; CRRA appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether article VII requires neutrality under AAA rules for party-appointed arbitrators. | MDC contends the contract allows non-neutral arbitrators by express language. | CRRA argues AAA rules apply, mandating neutral party-appointed arbitrators absent written agreement otherwise. | Contract does not require AAA neutrality; party may appoint non-neutral arbitrators. |
| Whether the court erred by not holding an evidentiary hearing on equitable relief regardingDroney's involvement. | Court did not need to hear evidence because contract allows non-neutral arbitrators. | An evidentiary hearing was necessary to consider disqualification and equitable relief due to Droney's alleged improper involvement. | The court abused its discretion by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing on equitable relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Assn. Resources, Inc. v. Wall, 298 Conn. 145 (2010) (contract interpretation; ordinary meaning governs when clear)
- Fusco v. Fusco, 266 Conn. 649 (2003) (plenary review of contract interpretation; clear terms control)
- Hottle v. BDO Seidman, LLP, 268 Conn. 694 (2004) (arbitration rights; consideration of party relationships in context)
- Gaer Bros., Inc. v. Mott, 144 Conn. 303 (1957) (court intervention in arbitration to protect process integrity)
- Economos v. Liljedahl Bros., Inc., 279 Conn. 300 (2006) (equitable intervention in arbitration to preserve integrity)
- Garrity v. McCaskey, 223 Conn. 1 (1992) (preserving fairness of arbitration procedures)