In Hall Street Associates, L.L.C. v Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576, 581–84 (2008), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the grounds provided under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) for vacating or modifying arbitration awards are exclusive and may not be supplemented by an agreement of the parties. In holding that parties cannot contractually expand judicial review of arbitration awards under the FAA beyond what is provided for in the statute, the Court explicitly noted that it was addressing only “the scope of the expeditious judicial review under §§ 9, 10, and 11, deciding nothing about other possible avenues for judicial enforcement of arbitration awards,” such as “enforcement under state statutory or common law.” Hall St., 552 U.S. at 590. However, the Court also tacitly left open the question of whether parties could increase the level of judicial review or, alternatively, limit the scope of judicial review or even waive or eliminate it altogether. These issues have begun percolating through the circuit courts since Hall Street, and the following decisions illustrate some of these jurisprudential developments.

Increasing the Level of Judicial Review

One interpretation of the language in Hall Street that left open “other possible avenues” for judicial enforcement of arbitration awards under other authority focuses on whether it would permit parties to contractually demand a more searching examination of arbitration awards by a reviewing court. At least one court has disagreed. In Campbell’s Foliage, Inc. v. Federal Crop Insurance Corp., 562 F. App’x 828 (11th Cir. 2014), Campbell’s, a nursery, purchased a multiple peril crop insurance (MPCI) policy from the Rural Community Insurance Company (RCIC) to insure its crops against any losses caused by excess moisture during the 2008 crop year, which ran from June 1, 2007, through May 31, 2008. MPCI policies are issued pursuant to the terms of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (FCIA), 7 U.S.C. § 1501; underwritten by the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC); and managed by the Risk Management Agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. In July 2007, following an adverse weather event, Campbell’s filed a claim under the policy. The RCIC denied the claim, concluding that the policy was void because of Campbell’s failure to pay outstanding premiums for the prior year’s policy. In May 2011, Campbell’s filed suit for breach of contract and for a declaratory judgment. In response, RCIC moved to compel arbitration under the arbitration clause of the policy. The district court granted the motion after finding that the arbitration clause fell within the FAA and also retained jurisdiction to enforce or vacate any arbitration award. The arbitrator subsequently ruled in favor of the RCIC, determining that Campbell’s did not have insurance coverage for the 2008 crop year.

Read original article


Tags: