United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit 

___________________________

No. 21-3561

___________________________ 

Martinique Properties, LLC

 Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, Subscribing to Policy Number 

W1551E160301; Beazley Lloyd’s Syndicate 2623; Beazley Lloyd’s Syndicate 623

 Defendants - Appellees

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Nebraska - Omaha

____________ 

Submitted: November 16, 2022

Filed: March 1, 2023

____________ 

Before BENTON, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. 

____________

KELLY, Circuit Judge.

Martinique Properties, LLC filed a complaint against Certain Underwriters at 

Lloyd’s, London (Underwriters) seeking to vacate an arbitration award. The district
-2-

court1 dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim for vacatur. Martinique 

Properties now appeals, and we affirm. 

I. 

Martinique Properties owned apartments in Omaha, Nebraska, for which it 

had property insurance coverage through Underwriters. In May 2016, while the 

policy was in effect, the apartments sustained hail and wind damage. Martinique

Properties submitted an insurance claim for reimbursement of its repair costs. But 

Martinique Properties and Underwriters disputed the amount owed for the repairs. 

The insurance policy included an appraisal provision, which governed the 

process for resolving disagreements as to the amount of loss or the value of the 

property. Under the provision, a panel of appraisers was to evaluate the property 

damage and determine the amount of loss. If the panel came to a decision, its agreedupon appraisal award would be binding on the parties. 

In September 2019, Martinique Properties invoked the appraisal provision. A 

panel of appraisers agreed on a binding appraisal award in June 2020. The panel 

explained that the appraisal award had been calculated, in part, based on figures 

provided by a third-party repair company. 

In May 2021, Martinique Properties filed suit in Nebraska state court against 

Underwriters, seeking a declaration that the appraisal process and award were 

invalid. According to Martinique Properties, the award incorporated incorrect 

figures and measurements. Underwriters removed the action to federal district court 

1

The Honorable Brian C. Buescher, United States District Judge for the 

District of Nebraska. 
-3-

and filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that Martinique Propertiesfailed to adequately 

plead a ground for vacatur under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).2

 

 

The district court granted Underwriters’ motion to dismiss, finding that none 

of Martinique Properties’ allegations presented appropriate grounds for vacatur. 

Martinique Properties appeals. We review de novo a district court’s grant of a 

motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, “accepting as true all factual allegations 

in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Glick v. W. Power Sports, Inc., 

944 F.3d 714, 717 (8th Cir. 2019). 

II.

The FAA “is a congressional declaration of a liberal federal policy favoring 

arbitration agreements.” Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 

460 U.S. 1, 24 (1983). A court’s review of an arbitration award is “very limited.” 

Gas Aggregation Servs., Inc. v. Howard Avista Energy, LLC, 319 F.3d 1060, 1064 

(8th Cir. 2003). We afford “‘an extraordinary level of deference’ to the underlying 

arbitration award” and have “no authority to reconsider [its] merits.” Med. Shoppe 

Int’l, Inc. v. Turner Invs., Inc., 614 F.3d 485, 488 (8th Cir. 2010) (quoting Schoch 

v. InfoUSA, Inc., 341 F.3d 785, 788 (8th Cir. 2003)). Under the FAA, a court may 

only “vacate an arbitration award in four limited circumstances, and in the absence 

of one of these grounds, the award must be confirmed.” Id. 

Martinique Properties argues that the appraisal award must be vacated

because the appraisers “used figures and measurements which are contrary to the 

actual conditions of the Property” and failed to “consider certain buildings” and 

2

Underwriters also invoked the Convention on the Recognition and 

Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (Convention) in its motion to dismiss, but 

because Martinique Properties does not challenge the district court’s application of 

the Convention, we do not address it here. Similarly, neither party contests the 

district court’s conclusion that the appraisal process here qualifies as an arbitration 

for purposes of the FAA. 
-4-

certain portions of a damaged roof when determining the appraisal award. These 

alleged errors, Martinique Properties argues, show that the appraisers were either 

“guilty of misconduct,” 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(3), or “so imperfectly executed” their

powers that “a mutual, final, and definite award . . . was not made,” id. §10(a)(4)—

two of the four grounds for vacating an award under the FAA. 

However, Martinique Properties has alleged only factual errors that challenge 

the merits of the appraisal award, and we “have no authority to reconsider the merits 

of an arbitration award, even when the parties allege that the award rests on factual 

errors.” Med. Shoppe Int’l, 614 F.3d at 488. “An arbitrator does not ‘exceed his 

powers’ by making an error of . . . fact, even a serious one.” Beumer Corp. v. 

ProEnergy Servs., LLC, 899 F.3d 564, 565 (8th Cir. 2018). Accordingly, the 

appraisers’ use of certain figures and measurements in calculating the amount of loss

here, and their alleged failure to consider particular buildings and portions of roof 

damage, even if incorrect, are not sufficient for vacatur under the FAA. See Stroh 

Container Co. v. Delphi Indus., Inc., 783 F.2d 743, 751 (8th Cir. 1986) (“We may 

not set an award aside simply because we might have interpreted the agreement 

differently or because the arbitrators erred in . . . determining the facts”); Beumer 

Corp., 899 F.3d at 566 (“The parties bargained for the arbitrator’s decision; if the 

arbitrator got it wrong, then that was part of the bargain.”). 

Because Martinique Properties’ complaint fails to allege any permissible 

grounds for vacating the appraisal award, we affirm the judgment of the district 

court.

_____________________________