248 P.3d 644
Wyo.2011Background
- On Aug. 23, 2006, Worman was drilling for Nabors on a BP-owned well site in Carbon County; Sanford, BP's company man, allegedly grabbed Worman in a headlock and choked him, causing severe neck pain.
- Worman filed suit against Sanford, BP, and two co-workers alleging serious injuries from the on-site incident.
- BP moved to compel arbitration under the parties' agreements; the district court stayed the suit and ordered arbitration.
- The arbitrator held Sanford acted outside the scope of employment, was motivated by personal reasons, and ruled BP was not liable under respondeat superior.
- Worman moved to vacate the arbitration award as a manifest mistake of Wyoming law; the district court denied the motion.
- On appellate review, the Wyoming Supreme Court affirms, holding manifest mistake of law is not a basis for vacating a FAA arbitration award and endorsing deference to arbitrators while recognizing a split in federal authority on this issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether manifest mistake of law is a basis to vacate FAA awards. | Worman: manifest mistake of law justifies vacatur. | BP: Hall Street limits grounds to §10 and §11; no manifest-mistake ground. | No; manifest mistake of law is not an FAA vacatur ground. |
| Whether the arbitrator erred in applying scope-of-employment under respondeat superior. | Worman: Sanford acted within BP's scope because he was BP's man on site. | BP: Sanford's horseplay was not to serve BP; outside scope. | Arbitrator did not err; no manifest mistake; arbitrator's scope finding affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hall Street Associates, L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576 (U.S. 2008) (exclusive grounds for vacatur/modification under FAA)
- Foster v. Turley, 808 F.2d 38 (10th Cir. 1986) (arbitration review is narrowly limited)
- Wilko v. Swan, 346 U.S. 427 (U.S. 1953) (mere legal error not reversible; manifest disregard concept)
- Sage Club v. Hunt, 638 P.2d 161 (Wyo. 1981) (bartender’s scope-of-employment for bar duties and duties to maintain order)
- Condict v. Condict, 664 P.2d 131 (Wyo. 1983) (employee acts to serve employer's interests; contrasts with Hart scenario)
- Espinoza (Wyoming Workers' Comp Div.) v. Espinoza, 924 P.2d 979 (Wyo. 1996) (distinguishes workers' compensation scope vs. respondeat superior)
- Hamilton v. Natrona County Educ. Ass'n, 901 P.2d 381 (Wyo. 1995) (scope of employment factors for respondeat superior)
- Combined Ins. Co. of Am. v. Sinclair, 584 P.2d 1034 (Wyo. 1978) (scope-of-employment framework)