Justia Arbitration & Mediation Opinion Summaries

Appellees filed a class-action complaint against a Bank, asserting several claims arising from the Bank’s alleged practice of manipulating customers’ checking-account debit transactions to maximize the amount of overdraft fees charged to each customer. The Bank filed a motion to dismiss, or alternatively, a motion to compel arbitration based on an arbitration provision contained in the Deposit Agreement attached to Appellees’ complaint. In response, Appellees denied the existence of a valid arbitration agreement. The circuit court denied Bank’s motion, ruling that the arbitration provision was unconscionable and, thus, unenforceable. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that because the circuit court did not find that there was a valid arbitration agreement, the case must be remanded to the circuit court to determine whether there was a valid agreement to arbitrate between the parties.View "Bank of the Ozarks, Inc. v. Walker" on Justia Law

AECI filed suit against the Union seeking to vacate the arbitrator's award and the Union counterclaimed for enforcement. Relying on the court's decision in Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Teamsters Local Union No. 688, the district court ruled that the last chance agreement (LCA) superseded the collective bargaining agreement and therefore, when the arbitrator ignored the clear and unambiguous terms of the LCA, he imposed his personal standards of industrial justice. The court concluded that the district court read the Coca-Cola bottling decision too broadly. Where a CBA requires "just cause" to discipline or discharge an employee but fails to define the term, the arbitrator's broad authority to interpret the contract, to which the court must defer, includes defining and applying that term of the contract. Viewed from this perspective, the arbitrator's decision to sustain the Union's grievance must be enforced. Because the arbitrator specifically invoked and applied the just cause provision of the CBA, the contract between AECI and the Union that defined his authority, his decision "draws its essence" from the CBA. Accordingly, the arbitrator's decision sustaining the Union's grievance must be enforced. The court declined to enforce the portion of the award granting the employee back pay from the day he was suspended until the day he was discharged. The court reversed and remanded.View "Associated Electric Coop. v. IBEW" on Justia Law

Southeast Construction, L.L.C. ("SEC") appealed a Circuit Court order enforcing, a previous judgment entered by that court based on an arbitration award in favor of WAR Construction, Inc ("WAR"). Upon review of the facts of this case, the Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. The Court concluded the circuit court erred in finding in a January 9 order that "all liens and claims against SEC ... from WAR's subcontractors/suppliers that filed a lien on the project ... ha[d] been released and/or adequate security ha[d] been provided." Furthermore, the Court concluded the circuit court erred in finding that WAR had "attempt[ed] to comply with what the Supreme Court ordered the circuit court to implement as of May 13, 2011," and that WAR was entitled to have the interest owed under the arbitrators' award and the May 9 judgment calculated from that date. View "Southeast Construction, L.L.C. v. WAR Construction, Inc. " on Justia Law

In consolidated cases, thirty-two plaintiffs who signed delayed-deposit check agreements with Zippy Check Advance agreed that Zippy Check could pursue judicial remedies against them to collect the debt, while any and all of their claims would be relegated to arbitration. The circuit courts found the arbitration agreements to be unconscionable and denied Zippy Check’s motions to compel arbitration. The Court of Appeals affirmed as to one version of the agreement and reversed as to the other. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that both versions of the arbitration agreement were so one-sided that they were substantively unconscionable and unenforceable. The Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the Court of Appeals and affirmed the judgments of the Circuit Court of Clarke County and the Circuit Court of Newton County. View "Caplin Enterprises, Inc. v. Arrington" on Justia Law

Allstate filed suit against defendants, alleging that defendants engaged in insurance fraud. On appeal, defendants challenged the district court's denial of their motion to compel arbitration, arguing that the New York Insurance Law and the contract provision required by that law granted them the right to arbitrate Allstate's claims. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court, concluding that the operative statute, regulation, and contract provision did not provide a right to arbitration in this context. View "Allstate Ins. Co. v. Mun" on Justia Law

Consumers who purchased an advertised product that promised they could "eat all you want and still lose weight" were dissatisfied with the results and filed a class action against the manufacturers for false advertising. The parties entered into mediation, where they drafted and signed a document outlining the terms of a settlement. They then informed the district court that the mediation had been successful and, in subsequent months, exchanged several drafts further documenting the settlement. During the drafting, the parties could no longer agree on terms and defendants informed the district court they no longer intended to settle. The plaintiff class then filed a motion to enforce the settlement achieved at the mediation, and the district court granted that motion because it concluded the parties had entered into an enforceable agreement. On appeal, the plaintiffs contested the Tenth Circuit's interlocutory jurisdiction. The defendants challenged the merits of the district court’s conclusion that the parties had, in fact, reached a binding settlement. The Tenth Circuit concluded that the case was an impermissible interlocutory appeal because the district court's judgment was not a final one. Finding that it lacked jurisdiction, the Tenth Circuit dismissed the appeal. View "Miller, et al v. Basic Research, et al" on Justia Law

The Providers supply outpatient cardiac telemetry (OCT) services, used by doctors to monitor cardiac arrhythmias. The device differs from conventional technology in that it transmits electrocardiographic (EKG) data in real time to certified technicians, who forward the data to a physician. OCT is approved by the FDA, and has long been covered by Medicare and commercial insurers. CIGNA administers employer sponsored health benefit plans. CIGNA pays its in-network providers directly for the services rendered to patients. In 2007, the Providers joined CIGNA’s network by Agreements that set the reimbursement rate and define “Covered Services.” In 2012, CIGNA issued a statement that it would no longer cover OCT “for any indication because it is considered experimental, investigational or unproven.” The 2012 Policy acknowledged that this new position would be trumped by any conflicting language in the coverage policies themselves. In arriving at the new policy, CIGNA relied on the same medical literature it had previously relied upon in concluding that OCT should be covered. The Providers claim that CIGNA indicated that its motive was financial, but refused to reconsider the 2012 Policy. The district court found that the Providers’ claims fell within the arbitration clause of the Agreement. The Third Circuit vacated. The clause at issue is limited in scope to disputes “regarding the performance or interpretation of the Agreement” and the claims at issue do not relate to the performance or interpretation of the Agreement.View "Cardionet Inc v. Cigna Health Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia against his former employer, Accenture, alleging claims for age discrimination. Accenture moved to compel arbitration. While the motion to compel arbitration was pending with the Superior Court, plaintiff received a right-to-sue letter from the EEOC and filed an action in district court. Accenture moved to compel arbitration of these claims as well. On appeal, plaintiff contended that the district court erred in compelling arbitration. The court held that, where the plaintiff is not pursuing Dodd-Frank whistleblower claims, neither 7 U.S.C. 26(n)(2), nor 18 U.S.C. 1514A(e)(2) overrides the FAA's mandate that arbitration agreements are enforceable. Because plaintiff was not pursuing a "dispute under this section" Dodd-Frank did not bar arbitration of his federal claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "Santoro v. Accenture Federal Services, LLC" on Justia Law

An Alaska state trooper was discharged for having consensual sex with a domestic violence victim the morning after assisting in the arrest of the victim's husband. The Public Safety Employees Association (PSEA) filed a grievance under its collective bargaining agreement with the State. An arbitrator ordered that the trooper be reinstated with back pay after a three-day suspension, concluding that the State did not have just cause to discharge the trooper. The superior court upheld the arbitrator's order of back pay but decided that it could not enforce the ordered reinstatement because the Alaska Police Standards Council had by this point revoked the trooper's police certificate. The State appealed, arguing that the arbitrator committed gross error and that the order was unenforceable as a violation of public policy. The Supreme Court "generally will not disturb the results of a binding arbitration, even where [it] would reach a different conclusion were we to review the matter independently." The Court reasoned that because no statute, regulation, or written policy prohibited supervisors from engaging in progressive discipline of the trooper, in lieu of discharging him for his misconduct, the arbitrator's decision to impose discipline rather than uphold the termination did not violate any explicit, well-defined, and dominant public policy. Because the arbitrator's award was neither unenforceable nor grossly erroneous, the Court affirmed the superior court's decision to uphold the arbitration award in part. View "Alaska v. Public Safety Employees Association" on Justia Law

Defendants-Appellants Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C., and Chesapeake Investments appealed a district court judgment awarding Plaintiff-Appellee BP America Production Company $22,265,302 plus interest, and a district court order compelling Chesapeake to pay $1,403,669.38 in attorneys' fees and disbursements. BP cross-appealed the district court order confirming an arbitration award. This dispute arose out of a purchase and sale agreement ("PSA") entered into by Chesapeake as seller and BP as purchaser of oil and gas properties for $1.75 billion. The PSA contained three arbitration provisions. After closing, the parties agreed on title defects. Less the aggregate threshold, the parties agreed BP was owed $81,234,556. At the same time, disputed title defects and benefits were submitted to title arbitration. BP sought approximately $46 million for disputed title defects, and Chesapeake sought approximately $22 million for disputed title benefits and "credits." While the title arbitration was pending, BP submitted a proposed final accounting statement reflecting the agreed title defects of approximately $80 million. Chesapeake responded with an exception report changing the $80 million to $58 million. When BP asked why, Chesapeake responded that it had applied a $22 million offset based on its pending claims in the title arbitration; Chesapeake did not dispute the $80 million in agreed title defects, but temporarily withheld the $22 million because it might recover that amount in title arbitration. Though the accounting arbitration ended, the title arbitration continued. The arbitration panel issued an award finding $11,526,434 in title defects (favoring BP), and $3,727,031 in title benefits (favoring Chesapeake). The arbitration panel noted that it made no determination of whether these amounts exceeded the aggregate threshold, or whether its ruling would actually cause any money to exchange hands. If the parties could not agree on the effect of the panel's ruling on the ultimate purchase price adjustment, they could submit their positions on that issue to further arbitration. Shortly thereafter, BP requested payment from Chesapeake. Because a $3 million in title benefits awarded to Chesapeake did not exceed the aggregate threshold, Chesapeake received no price adjustment to offset the $22 million it previously withheld. The parties filed competing motions to confirm in the district court. The court ultimately entered judgment in favor of BP for $22,265,302 plus interest. Chesapeake appealed that judgment. The district court later granted in part BP's motion for attorneys' fees and costs and awarded $1,403,669.38 against Chesapeake for fees and disbursements. Chesapeake appealed that judgment too. Upon review of the matter, the Tenth Circuit affirmed both awards in Chesapeake's direct appeals and dismissed BP's cross-appeal. View "BP America Production Company v. Chesapeake Exploration, LLC, et al" on Justia Law