A federal judge was wrong to vacate an arbitral award in an insurance dispute on the grounds that some of the arbitrators did not disclose that they were working on a second dispute that involved one of the same witnesses, a related party and similar legal issues, a Second Circuit panel has ruled.
Judge Robert D. Sack (See Profile) wrote in a Feb. 3 opinion in Scandinavian Reinsurance Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co., 10-0910, that Southern District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin did not have enough evidence to support her conclusion of “evident partiality” on the part of the arbitrators, and remanded the case with instructions to confirm the award.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
