Justia Arbitration & Mediation Opinion Summaries

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

Respondent filed suit in state court against multiple defendants alleging various construction defects in her home. Petitioners, a subset of defendants, filed a petition in federal court to compel respondent to arbitrate her claims against them based on an arbitration clause in the warranty. The court remanded to the district court with directions to dismiss the petition for want of subject matter jurisdiction because petitioners failed to join necessary and indispensable parties, some of which were non-diverse from resopndent, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19.View "Home Buyers Warranty Corp. v. Hanna" on Justia Law

The Union filed suit against WUSA-TV, a television station, alleging that the station breached its contractual obligations by laying off a technician. Because the grievance did not "arise under" the 2008 bargaining agreement, and the 2012 agreement was not yet in effect, the district court concluded that the station was not obligated to arbitrate. The court affirmed, concluding that seniority provisions in the 2008 agreement did not create vested or accrued rights and therefore, the grievance was not arbitrable under the 2008 agreement. Nor do the qualified seniority protections against layoffs contained in the 2008 agreement survive expiration under normal principles of contract interpretation. Moreover, the union's extrinsic evidence was itself ambiguous. Finally, the court rejected the Union's claim that the grievance was arbitrable under the 2012 agreement.View "Int'l Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. Detroit Free Press, Inc." on Justia Law

Guardian Builders, LLC, and E. Wayne Tackett appealed a Circuit Court order denying their motion to vacate or modify an arbitration award entered in favor of Randy Uselton and his wife Melissa. In 2010, the Useltons sued Guardian alleging several claims arising from Guardian's construction of a house for the Useltons. Guardian subsequently filed a motion to compel arbitration, and the circuit court granted that motion. In late 2011, the arbitrator entered a final award in favor of the Useltons. Guardian subsequently filed a motion to vacate or modify the arbitration award to the circuit court, to which it attached a copy of the arbitration award. The Useltons filed a 'motion to confirm' the arbitration award. The circuit court entered an order purporting to deny Guardian's motion to vacate or modify the arbitration award, purporting to grant the Useltons' motion to confirm the arbitration award, and purporting to order Guardian to pay $1,421.75 in Better Business Bureau fees and facility costs related to the arbitration. Guardian objected only to a subset of the damages that were awarded the Useltons that were not directly related to the poorly constructed house, specifically, attorney fees and arbitration fees (including both the arbitrator fee and the forum fee charged by the Better Business Bureau of North Alabama ("the BBB"), which administered the arbitration). Furthermore, Guardian argued the arbitrator lacked the authority to award the Useltons attorney fees and arbitration fees. The Supreme Court agreed that the arbitrator exceeded his authority by awarding those remedies. The trial court's judgment was reversed and the case remanded for the trial court to enter a modified judgment subtracting attorney fees and arbitration fees from the award made to the Useltons. View "Guardian Builders, LLC v. Uselton " on Justia Law

A contract for reinsurance between National and Meadowbrook required both parties to submit any reinsurance disputes to a three-member arbitration panel to be comprised of “two arbitrators and an umpire” who were “active or retired disinterested officials of the insurance or reinsurance companies, or Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, not under the control of either party.” After Meadowbrook initiated arbitration, National named Rosen and Meadowbrook named Schlaybaugh as arbitrators. They deadlocked in selecting an umpire, exchanged slates of candidates, and chose Greene, who disclosed that he was a personal friend of Rosen and that both were members of the reinsurance industry group The panel adopted orders that, “Ex parte communications with any member of the Panel shall cease upon the filing of the parties’ initial pre-hearing briefs.” The panel issued a unanimous Interim Final Award, resolving issues of liability in favor of National, but did not calculate a final damages award at that time. Rosen resumed ex parte communications and National disclosed those communications. After the panel rejected Meadowbrook’s submissions concerning damages, Meadowbrook claimed that it had disenfranchised Schlaybaugh. National claimed that a swift decision was needed, that Schlaybaugh was on vacation and could not be reached, and that his participation would have made no difference. The district court enjoined proceedings. The Sixth Circuit reversed, noting that judicial review of arbitral decisions is narrow and deferential.View "Savers Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff-appellee Randy Howard sought to bring a class action suit against Ferrellgas Partners, LP in federal district court for allegedly overcharging him and other customers. Ferrellgas moved to force plaintiff to pursue his individual claim alone, in arbitration, arguing that arbitration was the procedure the parties had agreed to. The district court was unable to conclude that the parties agreed to arbitrate. Rather than proceed to trial as the Federal Arbitation Act required, the district court entered an order denying arbitration outright. The Tenth Circuit concluded that denial was error: "When it's apparent from a quick look at the case that no material disputes of fact exist, it may be permissible and efficient for a district court to decide the arbitration question as a matter of law through motions practice and viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the party opposing arbitration. . . . Parties should not have to endure years of waiting and exhaust legions of photocopiers in discovery and motions practice merely to learn where their dispute will be heard. The Act requires courts process the venue question quickly so the parties can get on with the merits of their dispute in the right forum. It calls for a summary trial — not death by discovery." View "Howard v. Ferrellgas Partners, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit in Mississippi state court against defendants seeking damages and declarative injunctive relief. Plaintiffs asserted two claims: first, common-law trade-secret misappropriate and intentional interference with business relations; and second, violation of state law, which protects a patient's right to use any pharmacy of his choosing. After removing plaintiffs' suit to federal court, defendants moved to compel plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims under the arbitration contracts to which all or most defendants were not signatories under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. 3-4. The court concluded that the relevant Arizona law, made controlling by the Provider Agreement's choice-of-law clause, supported the non-signatory defendants' motion to enforce the agreement to arbitrate against plaintiffs based on state-law equitable estoppel doctrine. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment compelling arbitration. The court recognized that the court's prior decisions applying federal common law, rather than state contract law, to decide such questions have been modified to conform with the Supreme Court's holding in Arthur Andersen LLP v. Carlisle.View "Crawford Professional Drugs, et al. v. CVS Caremark Corp., et al." on Justia Law