Indstrl. Risk v. Hartford

65 Citing cases

  1. Comprehensive Orthopaedics & Musculoskeletal Care, LLC v. Axtmayer

    293 Conn. 748 (Conn. 2009)   Cited 24 times
    Holding that so long a plausible interpretation of the agreement was made by the arbitrator, the provisions of General Statutes ยง 52-418 have been complied with

    (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Industrial Risk Insurers v. Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection Ins. Co., 273 Conn. 86, 93, 868 A.2d 47 (2005). In arguing that the trial court improperly declined to review the arbitrator's determination de novo, the plaintiffs fail to recognize this distinction.

  2. Better Way Wholesale Autos, Inc. v. Gause

    184 Conn. App. 643 (Conn. App. Ct. 2018)   Cited 2 times

    (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Industrial Risk Insurers v. Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Ins. Co. , 273 Conn. 86, 89 n.3, 868 A.2d 47 (2005). "[A] claim that the arbitrators have exceeded their powers may be established under ยง 52-418 in either one of two ways: (1) the award fails to conform to the submission, or, in other words, falls outside the scope of the submission; or (2) the arbitrators manifestly disregarded the law."

  3. Blakeslee v. Dept. of Transportation

    273 Conn. 746 (Conn. 2005)   Cited 29 times
    In C. Blakeslee Arpaia Chapman, Inc. v. Dept. of Transportation, 273 Conn. 746, 758 (2005), the Court stated: "([u]nder a unrestricted submission, the arbitrators' decision is considered final and binding; thus the courts will not review the evidence considered by the arbitrators nor will they review the award for errors of law or fact)."

    (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Industrial Risk Insurers v. Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection Ins. Co., 273 Conn. 86, 89 n. 3, 868 A.2d 47 (2005). Pursuant to ยง 4-61 (e), the arbitrators issued a written decision setting forth the following findings of fact relevant to this appeal. The contract required the plaintiff to complete construction of the three bridges within 1507 calendar days and provided for liquidated damages in the amount of $2000 per day for the plaintiffs failure to meet the contract deadline.

  4. Benistar Emp'r Servs. Tr. Co. v. Benincasa

    189 Conn. App. 304 (Conn. App. Ct. 2019)   Cited 6 times

    "[C]ourts do not review the evidence or otherwise second-guess an arbitration panel's factual determinations when the arbitration submission is unrestricted." Industrial Risk Insurers v. Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Ins. Co. , 273 Conn. 86, 96, 868 A.2d 47 (2005). The plaintiffs' claim that Stein's award was in manifest disregard of the law relies on the argument that Stein ignored contract law in his improper factual determination that elements of a contract existed.

  5. Local 818, Council 4, Am. Fed'n of State v. New Britain Bd. of Educ.

    73 A.3d 806 (Conn. App. Ct. 2013)

    We begin by setting forth the standard of review and the legal principles pertinent to this appeal. The standard governing the review of arbitration awards is narrow and well established. Industrial Risk Insurers v. Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Ins. Co., 273 Conn. 86, 92, 868 A.2d 47 (2005). As the authority of the arbitrator flows from the parties' mutual agreement, โ€œthe extent of our judicial review of the award is delineated by the scope of the parties' agreement.... When the scope of the submission is unrestricted, the resulting award is not subject to de novo review even for errors of law so long as the award conforms to the submission.... Because we favor arbitration as a means of settling private disputes, we undertake judicial review of arbitration awards in a manner designed to minimize interference with an efficient and economical system of alternative dispute resolution.โ€

  6. Afscme, Council 4, Local 2663 v. Dep't of Children & Families

    142 Conn. App. 1 (Conn. App. Ct. 2013)   Cited 4 times

    The standard of review of arbitration awards is well established. See Industrial Risk Insurers v. Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Ins. Co., 273 Conn. 86, 92, 868 A.2d 47 (2005). โ€œJudicial review of arbitral decisions is narrowly confined.... When the parties agree to arbitration and establish the authority of the arbitrator through the terms of their submission, the extent of our judicial review of the award is delineated by the scope of the parties' agreement.... When the scope of the submission is unrestricted, the resulting award is not subject to de novo review even for errors of law so long as the award conforms to the submission.โ€

  7. RV V Lockworks, LLC v. Five Yale & Towne, LLC

    No. FSTCV146023698S (Conn. Super. Ct. Mar. 16, 2016)

    In articulating the well-established standard of review of arbitration awards, our Supreme Court has observed that " [j]udicial review of arbitral decisions is narrowly confined . . . When the parties agree to arbitration and establish the authority of the arbitrator through the terms of their submission, the extent of our judicial review of the award is delineated by the scope of the parties' agreement . . . Because we favor arbitration as a means of settling private disputes, we undertake judicial review of arbitration awards in a manner designed to minimize interference with an efficient and economical system of alternative dispute resolution . . ." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Industrial Risk Insurers v. Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Ins. Co., 273 Conn. 86, 92-93, 868 A.2d 47 (2005). " Arbitration is a creature of contract between the parties and its autonomy requires a minimum of judicial intrusion . . . The parties themselves, by the agreement of the submission, define the powers of the arbitrator . . . The submission constitutes the charter of the entire arbitration proceedings and defines and limits the issues to be decided . . . When the parties have agreed to a procedure and have delineated the authority of the arbitrator, they must be bound by those limits."

  8. Girolametti v. Michael Horton Assocs.

    332 Conn. 67 (Conn. 2019)   Cited 28 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Girolametti, we cited decisions from several jurisdictions that had similarly adopted a rebuttable presumption that subcontractors are in privity with general contractors for purposes of res judicata.

    (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Industrial Risk Insurers v. Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Ins. Co. , 273 Conn. 86, 89 n.3, 868 A.2d 47 (2005). 2

  9. Kellogg v. Middlesex Mut. Assurance Co.

    326 Conn. 638 (Conn. 2017)   Cited 12 times
    In Kellogg v. Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co., supra, 326 Conn. 638, 165 A.3d 1228, our Supreme Court reversed Judge Tierney's decision in full and remanded the matter with direction to deny the plaintiff's application to vacate the arbitration award.

    That provision required the loss amount to be determined through an unrestricted arbitration proceeding, meaning that the arbitrators are empowered to decide issues of law and fact, and the award is not conditioned on judicial review. See Industrial Risk Insurers v. Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Ins. Co. , 273 Conn. 86, 89 n.3, 868 A.2d 47 (2005).To establish the appraisal panel, the plaintiff and the defendant, pursuant to the restorationist policy, each appointed one appraiser to serve as an arbitrator, and these two appraisers chose a neutral third arbitrator to act as an umpire.

  10. Afscme v. Dep't of Children & Families

    SC 19166 (Conn. Jun. 23, 2015)

    Having done so, they are bound by the decision lawfully rendered." Id.; cf. Blakeslee Arpaia Chapman, Inc. v. Dept. of Transportation, 273 Conn. 746, 757, 873 A.2d 155 (2005) (inconsistency between arbitrators' award and findings of fact does not permit court to vacate award as manifestly disregarding law; General Statutes ยง 4-61 [e], requiring arbitrators interpreting public works contracts to issue written findings of facts "contains no well defined, explicit or clear requirement that the award be consistent with the findings of fact"); Industrial Risk Insurers v. Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Ins. Co., 273 Conn. 86, 96, 868 A.2d 47 (2005) ("Hartford Steam Boiler . . . contends that the award manifests an egregious or patently irrational application of the law because the award rests on factual findings that, according to Hartford Steam Boiler, are wholly unsupported by the undisputed evidence. As we have stated, however, courts do not review the evidence or otherwise second-guess an arbitration panel's factual determinations when the arbitration submission is unrestricted.