Hartford Steam Boiler v. Underwriters

35 Citing cases

  1. Starboard Res., Inc. v. Henry

    196 Conn. App. 80 (Conn. App. Ct. 2020)   Cited 3 times

    (Citation omitted.) Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Ins. Co. v. Underwriters at Lloyd's & Cos. Collective , 271 Conn. 474, 484 n.9, 857 A.2d 893 (2004), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 974, 125 S. Ct. 1826, 161 L. Ed. 2d 723 (2005). We begin by setting forth the applicable standard of review.

  2. All Seasons Serv. v. Guildner

    94 Conn. App. 1 (Conn. App. Ct. 2006)   Cited 14 times
    Holding that court improperly disregarded arbitrator's articulation of award and that "arbitrator's judgment that a clarification was warranted is to be given deference by the court"

    Although the parties based their arguments regarding that issue solely on state law, we conclude that the contract between the parties is one involving commerce and, accordingly, look to federal precedent for guidance in our analysis. Compare Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Ins. Co. v. Underwriters at Lloyd's & Cos. Collective, 271 Conn. 474, 484, 857 A.2d 893 & n.9, 271 Conn. 474, 857 A.2d 893 (2004) (when both federal and state law applied to arbitration clause, court looked to federal doctrine of functus officio to determine court's authority to remand award to arbitrator for clarification), cert denied, 544 U.S. 974, 125 S. Ct. 1826, 161 L. Ed. 2d 723 (2005).The Federal Arbitration Act (arbitration act), 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., applies in both state and federal courts when parties have entered into "a contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of such contract or transaction . . . ."

  3. Cunniffe v. Cunniffe

    150 Conn. App. 419 (Conn. App. Ct. 2014)   Cited 13 times
    Holding that "no enforceable appellate stay of execution results from the filing of a jurisdictionally infirm appeal"

    (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Ins. Co. v. Underwriters at Lloyd's & Cos. Collective, 271 Conn. 474, 496, 857 A.2d 893 (2004), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 974, 125 S.Ct. 1826, 161 L.Ed.2d 723 (2005). Satisfaction of the second prong of the Curcio test “requires the parties seeking to appeal to establish that the trial court's order threatens the preservation of a right already secured to them and that that right will be irretrievably lost and the [party] irreparably harmed unless they may immediately appeal.... An essential predicate to the applicability of this prong is the identification of jeopardy to [either] a statutory or constitutional right that the interlocutory appeal seeks to vindicate.”

  4. First Merchants Grp. Ltd. v. Fordham

    138 Conn. App. 220 (Conn. App. Ct. 2012)   Cited 2 times

    Specifically, the plaintiff contends that if the February 23, 2007 decision was a final award, the arbitrator had no further authority over the matter and all subsequent rulings by her had no legal effect. See Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Ins. Co. v. Underwriters at Lloyd's & Cos. Collective, 271 Conn. 474, 484, 857 A.2d 893 (2004), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 974, 125 S.Ct. 1826, 161 L.Ed.2d 723 (2005). The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

  5. State v. Connecticut State Employees Assn

    980 A.2d 354 (Conn. App. Ct. 2009)   Cited 3 times

    Accordingly, we reverse the court's judgment and remand the case with direction to remand the matter to the arbitrator for clarification of the award by answering the question as to whether the grievant's dismissal was for just cause in the affirmative or in the negative. In the order to file supplemental briefs, we asked the parties to answer the following: "1. Is the arbitrator's award ambiguous? See, e.g., Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection Ins. Co. v. Underwriters at Lloyd's Cos. Collective, 271 Conn. 474, 857 A.2d 893 (2004), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 974, 125 S. Ct. 1826, 161 L. Ed. 2d 723 (2005); All Seasons Services, Inc. v. Guildner, 94 Conn. App. 1,891 A.2d 97 (2006). 2. If the award is ambiguous, should the matter be remanded to the trial court with direction to remand it to the arbitrator for clarification of the award by directly answering the first question, `Was the dismissal of the grievant, Jose Delgado, for just cause?

  6. Hartford Steam Boiler v. Underwriters

    2005 Ct. Sup. 14381 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2005)

    That decision was appealed and subsequently reviewed by the Supreme Court. That Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the remand order did not constitute a final decision. Hartford Steam Bolter Inspection and Insurance Company v. Underwriters at Lloyd's and Companies Collective et al, 271 Conn. 474 (2004). Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company (HSB) has now made application for a temporary injunction "(i) enjoining Respondents from participating in any arbitration proceedings between the parties in which Frank W. Ockerby is an arbitrator; and (ii) directing the Respondents to inform the arbitration panel that it may take no further action until further order of this court."

  7. Hartford v. Und. at Lloyd's

    544 U.S. 974 (2005)

    Sup. Ct. Conn. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 271 Conn. 474, 857 A. 2d 893.

  8. Gen. re Life Corp. v. Lincoln Nat'l Life Ins. Co.

    273 F. Supp. 3d 307 (D. Conn. 2017)   Cited 4 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that an award was ambiguous pursuant to the third functus officio exception, even though at first glance the key provision appeared to be facially clear, where that reading conflicted with the content of a treaty between the parties and the broader context of the parties' dispute

    Courts often find ambiguity in an arbitration award "when the award fails to address a contingency that later arises" or "when the award is susceptible to more than one interpretation." Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Ins. Co. v. Underwriters at Lloyd's & Companies Collective , 271 Conn. 474, 489–90, 857 A.2d 893 (2004). An arbitration awards' use of terms subject to multiple interpretations without further explanation or definition may also render an award ambiguous.

  9. State v. Neb. Ass'n of Pub. Emps.

    313 Neb. 259 (Neb. 2023)   Cited 1 times

    See Hartford Steam v. Underwriters at Lloyd's , 271 Conn. 474, 857 A.2d 893 (2004) (discussing cases).

  10. East Texas Salt Water Disposal v. Werline

    307 S.W.3d 267 (Tex. 2010)   Cited 116 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a trial court's order denying confirmation of an award is not insulated from appellate review merely because the trial court also vacates the award and directs a rehearing and that "an order requiring a new arbitration is as final a decision as an appellate court's remand of a case to a trial court for a new trial, and therefore appealable"

    ("We share the view of the district court that the opinion required clarification and interpretation. We also share the view of the district court that this was a task to be first performed by the arbitration committee and not the court, and that the court properly remanded the matter to the arbitration committee for such clarification and interpretation."); Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Ins. Co. v. Underwriters at Lloyd's and Cos. Collective, 271 Conn. 474, 857 A.2d 893, 905-906 (2004). Second: The Company's argument requires that subsection (5) operate as an exception to subsection (3), even though it provides a separate basis for appeal.