Prince Law Offices v. McCausland Keen & Buckman
550 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 18, 2017Background
- Prince Law Offices hired Appellees to assist in a Philadelphia class action via independent contractor fee sharing agreement with AAA arbitration.
- Arbitration held Nov 14, 2014; partial final award Feb 18, 2016 for Appellees but with unresolved fee/arbitrator costs issues; final award May 16, 2016 awarding fees/costs to Appellees.
- Prince petitioned to vacate arbitration award in Berks County on June 10, 2016; Appellees cross-petition to confirm on June 28, 2016.
- Trial court denied vacatur and granted confirmation; held the award complied with AAA rules and the standard award avoided need for a reasoned award.
- Prince appealed asserting irregularities (lack of basis, lack of calculations, and improper attorney-fee award); the court reviewed under the common-law arbitration standard and affirmed the judgment.
- Judgment affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Arbitrator’s basis for compensation explained? | Prince: no explanation of the basis. | Mirowitz: standard AAA award allowed no reasoned basis. | No irregularity; no requirement for a reasoned award under AAA rules given the standard award. |
| Were calculations enabling accuracy included? | Prince: award lacked calculations. | Appellees: calculations existed in the award. | No irregularity; calculations were included in the partial final award. |
| Was fee award to Appellees improper given lack of total victory? | Prince: fees inappropriate since not wholly successful. | Contract allowed “fair and equitable” allocation; prevailing party entitled. | No error; fee award consistent with contract and prevailing-party determination. |
Key Cases Cited
- Toll Naval Associates v. Chun-Fang Hsu, 85 A.3d 521 (Pa. Super. 2014) (arbitration review limited; abuse of discretion standard)
- McKenna v. Sosso, 745 A.2d 1 (Pa. Super. 1999) (irregularity relates to process, not merits)
- Duquesne Light Co. v. New Warwick Min. Co., 660 A.2d 1341 (Pa. Super. 1995) (irregularity requires more than erroneous outcome)
- Snyder v. Cress, 791 A.2d 1198 (Pa. Super. 2002) (only improprieties in arbitration are reviewable)
- F.J. Busse Co. v. Sheila Zipporah, L.P., 879 A.2d 809 (Pa. Super. 2005) (no error for not awarding statute-based fees)
- Hain v. Keystone Ins. Co., 326 A.2d 526 (Pa. Super. 1974) (policy exclusions not irregularities)
- Ginther v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 632 A.2d 333 (Pa. Super. 1993) (scope of arbitration may be exceeded as irregularity)
- Mellon v. Travelers Ins. Co., 406 A.2d 759 (Pa. Super. 1979) (awards for claims not raised may be irregular)
- Alaia v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc., 928 A.2d 273 (Pa. Super. 2007) (awards for claims not raised against party may be irregular)
- James D. Morrisey, Inc. v. Gross Const. Co., 443 A.2d 344 (Pa. Super. 1982) (ongoing undisclosed relationship as irregularity)
- Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Stein, 683 A.2d 683 (Pa. Super. 1996) (determination of insured status not irregularity)