[PUBLIS H]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 3- 10 64 8

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 5 :1 2- cv -0 00 92 -MTT CURTIS DAVIS, Mo va nt -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us PRODUCERS AGRI CULTURAL INSURANCE COMP ANY, Res po nd en t-Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Au gu st6, 2 01 4) Befo re TJ OFLAT, W ILSON an d R IPPLE, Cir cu itJu dg es . * RIPP LE, Circu itJu dg e:
Honora ble Kenne th F. Ripple, United States Circuit J udg e for the Seventh Circuit, * sitti ngby designation. Case: 13-10648 Date Filed: 08/06/2014 Page: 1 of 26Cu rti s Dav is bro ug htth is act io n i n t he di st ric t co urt t o c ha ll en ge th e

de ci si on of a n arb it rat orth atha d d en ie d h is cla im un de r a cro p i ns ur an ce p ol ic y ob ta in edfro m

Pro du cers Agri cu ltur al Ins ur an ce Co m pany (“ Pro Ag” ). Mr. Dav is fil eda m ot io n t o v acat e th e arb it rat or ’s awardan d t he n m ov edforsu m m ary jud gm en t. The di st ric t co urt g ran te d M r. Dav is ’s m ot io ns an d v acat edth e arb it rat or ’s dec is io n. Pro Ag n ow ap pe al s. The di stric t co urt erredin va cat in g t he arb it rat or ’s dec is io n. Sp eci fic al ly, th e arb it rat orwas e nt it le d t o c on cl ud e th atPro Ag h adth e au th or it y un de r th e po li cy to seta reas on ab le de ad li ne forth e rec ei ptof n eces sa ry do cu m en ta ti on in
supp ort o f th e cl ai m . Mr. Dav is ’s fai lu re t o c om pl y with t ha t d ead li ne was a n ad equa te ba si s fo r Pro Ag’s d en ia l o f hi s cl ai m . Mor eo ve r, un de r th e ci rcu m st an ces pre se nt edin th is cas e, th e arb it rat orwas e nt it le d t o m ak e h is fin di ng s wi th ou t fi rs t s eek in g aform al op in io n o f th e Fed eral Cro p In su ran ce Co rp or at io n (“ FCIC ”), the fed eral ag en cy with aut ho rit y

ov er cr op in su ran ce po li ci es . Fin al ly, Mr. Dav is waiv edan y arg um en t b as edup on th e arb it rat or ’s fai lu re t o d el iv er h is de ci si on an d a wardwithi n t he ti m e li m it at io ns pro vi de d b y th e p ol ic y . Mr. Dav is di d n otob ject wh enth e arb it rat or ’s dea dl in e p as se d; in st ead , he wai te d u nt il aft er h e rec ei ve d an a dv ers e d eci si on an d the n fi le d t hi s act io n i n t he di st ric t co urt. Acco rd in gl y , we no w rev ers e th e jud gm en t o f th e 2 Case: 13-10648 Date Filed: 08/06/2014 Page: 2 of 26di st ric t co urt an d re m an d t he cas e fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs co ns is te ntwith t hi s

op in io n.

I BACKGRO UND A. Facts 1. Th e Pol ic y, th e Cro p a nd the Cla im Mr. Dav is farm s i n P ul as ki Co un ty, Geo rg ia . ProAg is a pr iv at e in su ran ce co m pa ny tha t wri te s fe de ral cro p i ns ur an ce p ol ic ie s p ur su an t t o aSta nd ard Rei ns ur an ce Ag reem en t wi th th e FCI C. At al l t im es rel ev an t t o t hi s ac ti on , Mr. Dav is m ai nt ai ne d acro p i ns ur an ce p ol ic y writ te n b y

Pro Ag t o c ov er h is co tt on cro p. In 20 08 , Mr. Dav is ’s cot to n c ro p h ada lo w y ie ldcau se d b y pe rio ds of b ot h dr ou gh t an d e xc es si ve rai nf al l, i rri ga ti on pro bl em s an d atro pi cal st orm . He beg an ha rv es ti ng in lat e Oct ob er, an d h e co m pl et edhi s h arv es t o n Dec em be r 24 , 20 08
. Two d ay s p rio r to co m

pl et in g h is ha rv es t, o n Dec em be r 22 , Mr. Dav is
no ti fie d h is cro p i ns ur an ce ag en t, Pa t Ru sh of t he Ru sh -Yearty Ins ur an ce Ag en cy , of th e p os si bi li ty of a cl ai m un de r hi s p ol ic y

be cau se of t he lo w y ie ld . The ag en cy , ho wev er, fai le d t o fo rwardth e n ot ic e to Pro Ag unt il Janua ry 8, 2 00 9. Th e rec or d is no t cl ear r eg ard in g wh atad di ti on al in fo rm at io n M r. Dav is subm it te d t o P ro Ag 3 Case: 13-10648 Date Filed: 08/06/2014 Page: 3 of 26du rin g t hi s i ni ti al pe rio d a fte r hi s n ot ic e to Ru sh inlat e Dece m be r. In p art ic ul ar, th e rec or d d oe s n otco nt ai n aco py of an y co m pl et edin de m

ni ty clai m

lab el edas su ch . It i s cl ear t ha t, i n e va lu at in g t he cla im , Pro Ag ad jus te rs vi si te d t he Davi s farm in Jan ua ry , Feb ru ary an d M arch . The rec or d a ls o c on ta in s a f orm ti tl ed

“ Dela y edNot ic e o f Los s/ Dela y edCla im Rep ort” da te d M arch 24 , 20 09 , on whi ch
anad jus te r ha d wri tt en“ Cl ai m was o n t im e. Delay edOrig in al Adju st er b eh in d i n pr oc es si ng cla im .” 1 On M arch 20 , 20 09 , adju st er Lam ar J on es au th or eda Sp eci al Rep ort in di cat in g tha t h e co ul d n otsubs ta nt ia te Mr. Dav is ’s cla im edlo ss es as we athe rrel at ed . He reli edinpa rt o n c om pa ris on s t o n ei gh bo rin g farm s an d wea th er reco rd s. Th e rec or d a ls o c on ta in s i nt ern al Pro Ag fo rm s s ig ne d b y Mr. Dav is on th e sa m e d at e cal cu la ti ng th e lo ss on th e co tt on cro p, ap pa ren tl y supp orte d b y Mr. Dav is ’s pro du ct io n re po rts fro m hi s g in ne ry

(“ gi n s he et s” ). Pro Ag n ot ifi edMr. Dav is , by way of l et te r da te d J un e 1 2, 2 00 9, tha t “ th e cu rren t i nf

orm at io n p ro vi de d a ndde te rm in at io ns m ad e wou ldres ul t i n your cl ai m be in g d en ie d. Atth is ti m e ad di ti on al in fo rm at io n i s b ei ng reque st edfro m y ouin
aneffo rt t o s up po rt your cl ai m .” It co nt inue d: “ As you are awar e, y ou r lo ss was 2

R.16-1 at 19. 1 R.3-2 at 1. 2 4 Case: 13-10648 Date Filed: 08/06/2014 Page: 4 of 26rep orte d b ey on d t he ti m e al lo wedby the po li cy . Sect io n 1 5 . . . pro vi de [s ]

in fo rm at io n re ga rd in g your du ti es . . . in th e ev en t o f a l os s.” The l ette r di d n ot 3

I d. at 1-2. Sec tion 15 of the crop insura nce policy , entitled “Duties in the Eve nt of 3 Damag e, L oss, Abandonment, De struction, or Alternative Use of Crop or Acr eag e,” pr ovides, in rele vant par

t: Your Duties - (a) In case of dama g e to any insured cr op you must:

. . . . (2) Give us notice w ithin 72 hours of your initial discovery of dama g e (but not later than 15 da

y s after the end of

the insuranc e period), by unit, for ea ch insured c rop.

. . . . (4) Cooperate with us in the investigation or se ttlement of the claim, and, a s often as w e re asonably require : (i) Show us the damag ed crop; (ii) Allow us to remove samples of the insured crop; a nd (iii) Provide us with rec ords and doc uments we re quest and permit us to make copie s; and (5) Give us notice of

your expected r evenueloss not later than 45 day s after

the date the Har

vest Price is re lease d.

. . . . (c) In addition to complying w ith the notice re quirements, you must submi t a claim for indemnity

decla ringthe amount of your loss not later than 60 da y s after the Har vest Price is re lease d unless you reque st an extension in writi ngand we agree to such extension. Ex tensions will only be grante d if the amount of the loss cannot be deter

mined within such time period bec ause the information nee ded to (continued...) 5 Case: 13-10648 Date Filed: 08/06/2014 Page: 5 of 26ot he rwis e sp eci fy whatMr. Dav is ha d fa il edto pro vi de an d wh atde ad li ne he ha d
no t s at is fie d. Itdi d, h owe ve r, no te th at“ [a]t o urreque st , y ouare re qu ire d t o pr ov id e th e fo ll owi ng do cu m en ta ti on inord er fo r us to de te rm in e y ou r lo ss .” The 4 le tt er wen t o n t o l is t n in e requi redit em s, i nc lu di ng “pr oo f of th e cau se or c au se s o f lo ss th atco nt rib ut edto y ou r rep orte d l os s an d t he ti m e fra m es inwhi ch th ey oc cu rred .” Becaus e Mr. Dav is ha d i nd ic at edth atcert ai n p orti on s o f hi s cr op were

5
no t i rri ga te d, the let te r fu rth er re qu es te d a n a dd it io na l thr ee i te m s re la ti ng to (...continued) 3 deter

mine the amount of the loss is not available. T he cla im for indemnity must include all information we re quire to settle the c laim. Failure to submita cla im or provide the r equire d information will result in no indemnity , preve nted planting pay ment or re plant pay

ment (Even though no indemnity or other pa

y ment is due, you will sti ll be require d to pay the pre mium due under the policy for the unit). (d) You must: (1) Provide a c omplete har vestingand mar

ketingrec ord of e ach insured cr op by

unit including sepa

raterec ords showingthe same information for pr oduction from any acr eag e not insured. . . .

. . . . (e) You must establish the total production or value rec eived f or the insure d crop on the unit, that any

loss of production or va lue occ urre d duringthe insurance period, a

nd that the loss of production or va lue was dire ctly cause d by one or more of the insure d cause s specifie d in the Crop Provisions. R.9-2 at 15-16 (Policy

§ 15(a) -(e )). The harve st price f or cotton wa s relea sed on De cembe r 10, 2008. R.3-2 at 2.

4 I d. 5 6 Case: 13-10648 Date Filed: 08/06/2014 Page: 6 of 26irr ig at io n p ract ic es . The l et te r ga ve a th irt y -d ay de ad li ne fora res po ns e. The
reco rddo es no t d is cl os e whe th er Mr . Davi s t oo k a ny acti on du rin g t he fol lo win g th irt y da y s. Ina le tt er d at edJu ly 21, 2 00 9, ap pr ox im at el y forty day s af

te r it s p rio r le tt er, Pro Ag fo rm al ly den ie d M r. Dav is ’s cla im . This let te r rec it edth at“ Pro Ag h as no t
rece iv eda res po ns e in writ in g fr om y ouan d / or

any of t he it em s we re qu es te d a nd th atare re qu ire d b y

th e p ol ic y .” It fu rth er s ta te d:

6 You r cl ai m

ha s b een de ni eddu e to , bu t n otli m it edto , fai lu re t o co m pl y with “ Sect io n 1 5 —

Dut ie s i n t he Even t o f Dam ag e, Los s, Aba nd on m en t, Des tru ct io n, o r Alt ern at iv e Use of C ro p o r Acrea ge ” of th e [p ol ic y ]. Spe ci fic al ly, y ouare re qu ire d t o a ss is t u s i n t he in ve st ig at io n o f y ou r cl ai m , rep ort[] all no ti ces ti m el y , andsubm it y ou r cl ai m

for in de m ni ty notlat er tha n 6 0 d ay s af te r th e Endof In su ran ce Pe rio d. Si nc e y oudi d n otres po ndto our reque stform or e in fo rm at io n we a re s im

pl y no t ab le to m ak e an y

de te rm in at io ns as t o th e cau se of l os s, p ro du ct io n t o b e co un te d o r un in su redcau se s t o b e as se ss ed , andun iteli gi bi li ty bas edon Irri ga te d o r Non -irrig at ed acre ag e rep orte d. Fo r fu tu re re fere nc e, pl eas e rev ie w all po li cy requi rem en ts . [ 7 ] The let te r al so advi se d M r. Dav is of h is rig htto co nt es t the de te rm in at io n i n m ed ia ti on or a rb it rat io n. By ha nd writ te n l et te r an d a cco m panyin g d oc um en ta ti on da te d No ve m be r

R.3-3 at 1. 6 I d. 7 7 Case: 13-10648 Date Filed: 08/06/2014 Page: 7 of 2622 , 20 09 , so m e fo urm on th s af te r th e cl ai m

was d en ie d, M r. Dav is res po nd edto Pro Ag’s re qu es t. Mr . Davi s t he n fi le d fo r arb itrat io n o f hi s cl ai m , dem an di ng an awardof $ 34 8,2 04 .50
. 8

2. Arbi tra tio n Pro ceed in gs Beyondth e ev id en ce d is cu ss edab ov e an d, the refo re, i nd is pu tabl y in Pro Ag’s p os se ss io n p rio r to Ju ne 12 , 20 09 , th e arb it rat io n re co rdco nt ai ns ex pe rt op in io ns reg ard in g ra in fal l an d l oc al irr ig at io n p ract ic es , recei pt s re la te d t o t he
cro p, l ab tes ti ng res ul ts , news it em s re la ti ng to rai nf al l dur in g t he rel ev an t p eri od
an d s im il ar i te m s. So m e o f th os e d oc um en ts pl ai nl y were n otrece iv eddu rin g t he cl ai m s p eri odbe cau se th ey are d at edaft er tha t p eri odha d e xp ire d; th e o rig in s an d
subm is si on da te s o f th e rem ai nd er o f th e it em s ar e u nc le ar. Afte r a h eari ng an d p os t-h eari ng bri efi ng , th e rec or d o f pr oc eed in g c lo se d
on Nov em

be r 11 , 20 11 . Thirty-th ree d ay s l at er, o n Dec em be r 15 , 20 11 , th e arb it rat oris su edhi s d eci si on an d d en ie d M r. Dav is ’s cla im init s en ti rety . Sp eci fic al ly, th e arb it rat orfou ndth atMr. Dav is ’s Nov em be r res po ns e to th e Ju ne reque stwas “ [c]lea rly . . . ou ts id e th e Po li cy ’s ti m el in es [] anddi d n otpro vi de all reque st edan d re qu ire d i nf orm at io n/ do cum en ta ti on to ad jus t an d c om

pl et e th e
See R.1-1 at 2. 8 8 Case: 13-10648 Date Filed: 08/06/2014 Page: 8 of 26cl ai m .” He furth er fo un d: 9 Oth er tha n C la im an t’s t es ti m on y an d t he afo rem en ti on ed un da te d l et te r of

th e Loc al Agen t [c on firm in g ade la y inforward in g th e in it ia l re po rt o f lo ss to Pro Ag], no do cu m en ta ry ev id en ce was pr es en te d o r of

fere d b y Cla im an t t o p ro ve he subm it te d t he requi red in fo rm at io n/ do cu m en ta ti on reque st edinRes po nd en t’s J un e 1 2, 2 00 9 le tt er wi th in th e ti m e p ro vi de d b y Res po nd en t, n orwhy he fai le d t o subm itth e requi redcla im in fo rm at io n/ do cu m en ta ti on du e u nd er the Po li cy . Clai m an t cl earl y

fai le d t o c om

pl y with t he Po li cy

pro vi si on s an d t erm s as itrel at es to hi s dut ie s an d re sp on si bi li ti es to pro vi de in fo rm at io n/ do cu m en ta ti on forhi s cl ai m pe r Sec ti on 15 of t he Po li cy . Cl ai m an t’s fa il ur e to co m pl y with t he Po li cy

pro vi si on s as st at edab ov e is reas on an d ju st ifi cat io n fo r Res po nd en t t o d eny Cl ai m an t’s cl ai m . There fo re, h av in g m ad e th es e fac tu al de te rm in at io ns , itis no t n eces sa ry to m ak e an y

ad di ti on al factua l de te rm in at io ns on is su es of i rri ga ti on pra ct ic es , dro ug ht , water supp ly, ex ces si ve Fal l ra in s, et c. [ 1 0 ]

B. Dis tri ct Co urt Pro ceed in gs Upo n re cei ptof t he de ci si on of t he arb it rat orde nyin g h is cla im , Mr. Dav is fil edth is act io n i n t he di st ric t co urt, s eek in g v acaturof t he arb itrat io n a ward pu rs ua ntto th e Fed eral Arbi tra ti on Act (“ FAA”), 9 U.S.C. §§ 1-1 6. Sp eci fic al ly, he in vo ke d 9 U.S.C. § 1 0( a)(4 ), whi ch pe rta in s t o a ward s i n wh ic h “ th e arb it rat or s ex ceed edth ei r po wers , or s o i m pe rfec tl y ex ecu te d t he m

th ata m utua l, fi na l, an d

I d. at 5. 9 I d. 1 0 9 Case: 13-10648 Date Filed: 08/06/2014 Page: 9 of 26de fin it e awardup on th e subjec t m at te r subm it te d was no t m ad e.”

Afte r fi li ng anam en de d m ot io n t o v acat e, Mr. Dav is m ov edfor su m m ary jud gm en t. Mr . Davi s p res en te d t wo p rin ci pa l ar gu m en ts . Firs t, h e arg ue d t ha t,
un de r th e cro p i ns ur an ce p ol ic y at i ss ue , th e arb it rat io n p ro ceed in g was requi redto be co nduc te d “ ‘in ac co rd an ce wi th th e ru le s o f th e Am eri can Arbi tra ti on Ass oc ia ti on ’ (AAA).” Rul e 4 1 o f th e AAA Rul es m an da te d t ha t an awardbe 1 1
en te redno lat er tha n t hi rty days fro m th e cl os e o f th e h eari ng , a pe rio d o f ti m e whi chwas e xc eed edinhi s ca se by thre e d ay s. In hi s v ie w, th eref or e, th e co urt sh ou ldha ve va cat edth e awardas u nt im el y . His s eco ndarg um en t was th at , when th e arb it rat orco ns id eredwhet he r Mr. Dav is ti m el y ha d c om pl ie d wi th th e p ol ic y requi rem en ts forsubm it ti ng a cl ai m an d s up po rti ng do cu m en ta ti on , th e arb it rat or ha d e ng ag edin anin te rp ret at io n o f po li cy term s, ra th er tha n a n app li cat io n. In Mr. Dav is ’s vi ew, un de r fed eral reg ul at io ns an d t he po li cy it se lf, t he in te rp ret iv e ta skis res erv edto th e FCI C, an d, the refo re, the arb it rat or ex ceed edhi s au th or it y . Pro Ag re sp on de d t o b ot h m ot io ns . In ad di ti on to op po si ng Mr. Dav is ’s arg um en ts ab ou t the de la y in th e arb it rat or ’s dec is io n a ndwhet he r th e arb it rat or ha d e xc eed edhi s au th or ity , Pro Ag ar gu edth atitwas u nn eces sary to reac h tho se arg um en ts be cau se , init s v ie w, th e arb it rat orha d d et erm in edth atMr. Dav is ha d R.6-1 at 14 (quoting7 C.F.R. § 457.8 (Policy § 20(a) )). 1 1 10 Case: 13-10648 Date Filed: 08/06/2014 Page: 10 of 26fai le d t o m eethi s b ur de n o f pr oo f ba se d o n t he ev id en ce p res en te d re ga rd le ss of

an y fai lu re t o abi de by any

ap pl ic ab le ti m el in es . Afte r a h eari ng on th e m ot io n, the di st ric t co urt g ran te d s umm ary jud gm en t fo r Mr. Dav is , vac at in g the arb it rat or ’s award . After a ckno wled gi ng it s l im it ed po wer t o v acat e anarb it rat io n awardun de r 9 U.S.C . § 1 0, the di st ric t co urt ad dr es se d t he pa rti es ’ co nt en ti on s. Fi rs t, the co urt d is ag reedwith P ro Ag’s ch arac te riz at io n o f th e arb it rat or ’s fin di ng s as ba se d i n p arton th e b ur de n o f pr oo f. It c on cl ud edin st eadth atth e arb it rat or ’s dec is io n was ba se d e nt ire ly on i ts
as se ss m en t o f th e ti m el in es s o f Mr. Dav is ’s subm is si on . Next , inde ci di ng th e is su e o f Mr. Dav is ’s ti m el y co m pl ia nc e wit h t he po li cy , th e d is tri ctco urt ag reed with M r. Dav is th atth e arb itrat orim pe rm is si bl y

ha d i nt erp ret edth e te rm s o f th e po li cy . The co urt co nc lu de d t ha t re so lu ti on of t he di sp ut e tu rn edonth e p ro pe r ch arac te riz at io n o f Pro Ag’s J un e 1 2, 2 00 9 l et te r reque st in g fu rth er d oc um en ta ti on of Mr. Dav is ’s cla im . Spe ci fic al ly, inth e co urt’s v ie w, th e cru ci al is su e was whe th er tha t l et te r rep res en te d a n e xt en si on by ProAg of ade ad li ne pro vi de d i n th e p ol ic y or wh ethe r itwas ane w, firs t re qu es t fo r ad di ti on al in fo rm at io n n ot
ex pl ic it ly requ ire d b y

th e p ol ic y

(an d t he refo re n otsubjec t t o a ny of th e p ol ic y ’s sp eci fic de ad li ne s)
. To an swe r th is qu es ti on , th e d is tri ctco urt turne d t o t he term s o f th e p ol ic y . 11 Case: 13-10648 Date Filed: 08/06/2014 Page: 11 of 26It i de nt ifi edin Sect io n 1 5 “ on ly [thr ee] exp li ci t t im el in es s re qu ire m en ts rel ev an t t o

Dav is ’s cla im

forsubm it ti ng no ti ces or d oc um en ta ti on ” an d an a dd it io na l ob li ga ti on “ to ‘ [c]oo pe rat e wit h [P ro Ag] inth e in ve st ig at io n o r se tt le m en t o f th e cl ai m ,’ ” in cl ud in g “ ‘[p]rov id [in g P ro Ag] with reco rd s an d d oc um en ts ’” at it s reque st . The co urt n ot edth at , inad di ti on to th e reque stfor“ ‘all i nf orm at io n,’” 1 2 th e p ol ic y sp eci fic al ly requ ire s s ub m is si on of “ ‘a com pl et e h arv es ti ng an d
m ark et in g re co rd ’ of

th e cro p,” th e to ta l p ro du ct io n o r va lu e rec ei ve d o n the cro p, pr oo f th atth e lo ss oc cu rreddu rin g t he in su ran ce p eri odan d p ro of th at“ th e lo ss was ‘ di rect ly caus edby one or m or e o f th e in su redcau se s.’” Howev er, 1 3
co nt in ue d t he co urt, the re i s n o s pe ci fic de ad li ne un de r th e p ol ic y forreque st s fo r ad di ti on al in fo rm at io n. The co urt d et erm in edth at , alt ho ug h t he arb it rat or m ad e ref eren ce t o a fai lu re t o c om

pl y with t he ti m el in es s re qu ire m en ts of S ect io n 1 5, h e n ev er refe ren ceda pa rti cu la r pr ov is io n o f Sec ti on 15 th atMr. Dav is ha d v io la te d. In de ed , th e o nl y

sp eci fic refe ren ce t o ade ad li ne inth e arb it rat or ’s dec is io n was Mr. Dav is ’s fai lu re t o c om pl y with t he th irt y -d ay

de ad li ne setby the Ju ne 12 let te r. The co urt co nt in ue d, R.17 at 10 (sec ond and four th alterations in original) ( quoting R.3-1 at 15). 1 2 I d. at 10-11 (quotingR.3-1 at 15). 1 3 12 Case: 13-10648 Date Filed: 08/06/2014 Page: 12 of 26Thi s fi nd in g ra is es th e que st io n o f whe th er the arb itrat orco nc lu de d

th atPro Ag co ul d s etde ad li ne s n otfou ndinth e p ol ic y an d t he n u se th os e d ead li ne s as a ba si s fo r de ni al of acla im forpro cedur al no nc om pl ia nc e. Whi le itis un cl ear p reci se ly how the arb it rat or in te rp ret edth e le tt er, i t i s cl ear t ha t h e in te rp ret edth e le tt er as a pr oc edur al requi rem en t re ga rd in g Dav is ’s pro of of h is cla im
. [ 1 4 ] The co urt fu rth er ru le d t ha t, al th ou gh “ th e awardsu gg es ts th atth ere wer e so m e is su es with t he su ffi ci en cy of t he ev id en ce,” th e arb it rat orne ve r m ad e a fi nd in g t ha t the in fo rm at io n s ub m it te d t o Pro Ag was in su ffi ci en t, b utfou ndin st eadth atDavi s d idno t s ub m it wha t the in su ran ce co m

pa ny requ es te d wi th inth e p ol ic y ’s andth e le tt er’s d ead li ne s. Th e ti m el in es s i ss ue de ci de d b y th e arb it rat orwas th e type o f m at te r res erv edforin te rp ret at io n b y th e FCI C. The arb it rat or cle arl y in te rp ret edth e la ng ua ge of S ect io n 1 5 t o a rri ve at a co nc lu si on th atfai lu re t o c om pl y with the de ad li ne inth e Ju ne 12 le tt er co ul d re su ltin de ni al of t he cla im an d, i n s o d oi ng , m ad e a “po li cy or p ro cedur e in te rp ret at io n, re ga rd in g wh ethe r a s pe ci fic po li cy pro vi si on or p ro cedur e is ap pl ic ab le to th e si tu at io n, h ow i t i s ap pl ic ab le , or t he m ean in g o f an y po li cy pro vi si on or p ro cedur e[,]” [ 1 5 ]
a m atte r whi chsh ou ldhave be enres erv edforth e FCI C p ur su an t t o 7 C.F.R. § 4 57 .8 (§ 20 (a)( 1) of the rei ns ur an ce p ol ic y). Acco rd in g t o t he di st ric t co urt, “ th e fai lu re t o o bt ai n arequi redin te rp ret at io n fr om th e FCI C res ul ts inth e nul li fic at io n of anarb it rat io n a ward ” b ecau se itde m on st rat edth atth e arb it rat or act edinex ces s

I d. at 11. 1 4 I d. at 13-14 (quoting7 C.F.R. § 457.8 (§ 20(a )(1) of the policy )). 1 5 13 Case: 13-10648 Date Filed: 08/06/2014 Page: 13 of 26of

hi s au th or it y . 1 6 Hav in g fo un d t he awardsubjec t t o v acaturon th is gro un d, the co urt re jecte d Mr. Dav is ’s alt ern at e cl ai m ba se d o n t he th ree- da y

de la y inth e is su an ce o f th e arb it rat io n a wardun de r AAA Rul e 4 1. Th e d is tri ctco urt re st edit s co nc lu si on on es se nt ia ll y

two ba se s: Firs t, i t n ot eda de ci si onof t he form er Fi fth Cir cu itin whi chth e co urt d ecl in edto va cat e anawardas u nt im el y inpa rt b ecau se th ere h ad be enno imm ed ia te ob

jecti on an d, the refo re, a wai ve r. Seco nd , itrel ie d o n a 1 7 ge ne ral rel uc ta nc e in th e cas e la w to va cat e anawardth atwas i ss ue d i n a reas on ab le ti m e fra m e whe re the re h adbe enno sh owi ng of h arm or p reju di ce fr om th e u nt im el in es s. Pro Ag t im el y

ap pe al s.

II

DISCUSS IO N A.

I d. at 14. 1 6 See id. at 15 (c iting L odg e No. 725, Int’l Ass’n of Mac hinists v. M ooney Aircr aft, Inc., 1 7 410 F.2d 681, 683 ( 5th Cir. 1969)). 14

Case: 13-10648 Date Filed: 08/06/2014 Page: 14 of 26Ourjuri sd ic ti on an d t he di st ric t co urt’s jur is di ct io n a re s ecu re. W e rev ie w 1 8 th e d is tri ctco urt’s d eci si on ona m ot io n t o v acat e anarb it rat io n a wardde no vo an d it s fa ctua l fi nd in gs for

cle ar erro r. Whi te Sp rin gs Agri c. Ch em s., In c. v. Gl aws on In vs . Cor p., 6 60 F.3d12 77 , 12 80 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ). Ther e is a pr es um pt io n i n t he FAA in fav orof c on firm at io n o f arb it rat or s’ award s; th ey wil l b e v acat edon ly in cert ai n n arro w cir cu m st an ces de fin edinth e st atut e. Fraz ie r v. C it iF in an ci al Co rp ., LLC, 60 4 F .3d13 13 , 13 21 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). The g ro un d fo r va catursp eci fic al ly atis su e inth e p res en t ca se is whet he r “ th e arb it rat or [] exce ed ed[hi s] po wers ,” 9 U.S.C. § 1 0( a)(4 ). 1 9
The district cour

t considere d Mr. Davis’s pe tition under 9 U.S.C. § 10, and its 1 8 jurisdiction over this matter wa s based on 28 U.S.C. § 1332. See Cat Charte r, L L C v. Schurtenbe rg er, 646 F .3d 836, 841 n.7 (11th Cir. 2011) (notingthat the FAA provides the grounds for va catur

of an a rbitration awa

rd but requir es an inde pendent ba sis for fe dera l jurisdiction). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 16(a)( 1)(E)
. Section 10(a) includes only four discr ete grounds for va catingan ar bitration awa

rd: 1 9 (1) whe re the awa

rd wa s procur ed by

corr uption, fraud, or

undue mea

ns; (2) whe re the re w as evide nt partiality or cor ruption in the arbitrators, or either of them; (3) whe re the arbitrators wer e guilty of misconduct in re fusingto postpone the hearing, upon suf

ficient c ause shown, or

in refusingto hear

evidenc e per

tinent and materia l to the controver sy ; or of any other misbehavior

by which the rights of a

ny party have be en pre

judiced; or (4) whe re the arbitrators exceede d their powe rs, or so imperf ectly executed them that a mutual, final, a

nd definite a

war d upon the subject matter submitt ed wa s not made. (continued...) 15 Case: 13-10648 Date Filed: 08/06/2014 Page: 15 of 26As we al read y ha ve no te d, the di st ric t co urt t oo k t he vi ew th atth e arb it rat or ha d e xc eed edhi s au th or ity . ProAg no w rai se s t wo p rin ci pa l ch al le ng es to th e di st ric t co urt’s d eci si on . Firs t, i t cl ai m s t ha t the di st ric t co urt erredinread in g t he arb it rat or ’s dec is io n a s fo cu si ng ex cl us iv el y on ti m el in es s. In it s v ie w, th e de ci si on als o re st edon Mr. Dav is ’s fai lu re t o m eethi s s ub st an ti ve bu rd ento
es tabl is h e nt it le m en t t o p aym en t o f hi s cl ai m . Seco nd , itcla im s t ha t, ev enif the arb it rat or ’s dec is io n d idres t en ti rel y on ti m el in es s, the arb itrat ordi d n oten ga ge in
anim pe rm is si bl e p ol ic y

in te rp ret at io n tha t s ho ul d h av e b eenres erv edto th e FCIC
. In re pl y , Mr. Dav is subm it s t ha t the di st ric t co urt co rrec tl y de te rm in ed 2 0 (...continued) 1 9 9 U.S.C. § 10(a). The only ground urg ed by

Mr. Davis at any

stag e of this proc eedinghas bee n ground four
. ProAgmakes two a dditional arguments that need not oc cupy us long. F irst, it 2 0 contends that the district c ourt neve r found a n acc eptable statutory

basis for va catingthe awa rd. This argument plainly

lacks merit. Although the district cour t never invoked the languag e of 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(4) in its sum mation para graphs, it set for th the statutory

standard at the outset of its discussion and noted that the principal c halleng e that Mr. Da vis had brought was that the arbitrator had e x cee ded his authority . Moreove r, the district cour t was foc used entire ly

on the question whether

the ar bitrator could de cide the issue pr esente d without seekingan F CI C interpre tation, which is clea rly a question of the limits of the ar bitrator’s a

uthority . Having decide d that the authority was e x cee ded (i.e ., that the task belong ed to the F CI C alone), the district court held that the or der w as “subjec t to vacatur on this ground.” R.17 at 14. There can be no serious question that the district court’s dec ision was based on 9 U .S.C. § 10(a)(4)
. ProAgfurther

contends, in the a lternative, tha t, to the ext ent the district cour t did find vacatur appropriate under § 10(a) (4), it misinterprete d the statute. Relying on White Spring s Agricultural Chemica ls, Inc. v. Glaw son Investments Corp., 660 F.3d 1277 ( 11th Cir. 2011), ProAgreminds us that “[i] t is only when the a

rbitrator stra

y s from interpr etation and a pplication of the a gree ment and ef

fec tively ‘dispense[s] hi s own brand of industrial justi ce’ that his decision

(continued...) 16 Case: 13-10648 Date Filed: 08/06/2014 Page: 16 of 26th atth e arb it rat orex ceed edhi s au th or it y by bas in g h is de ci si onon th e fai lu re o f Mr. Dav is to m eeta de ad li ne th atwas s etby ProAg bu t tha t was no t i nc lu de d i n th e p ol ic y term s wi th ou t fi rs t s eek in g a n F CIC i nt erp ret at io n t ha t s uc h d ead li ne was pe rm is si bl e. He als o ra is es ag ai n h is arg um en t re ga rd in g t he un ti m el in es s o f th e arb it rat or ’s dec is io n und er AAA Ru le 41
. Bec au se th e rel ev an t au th or it ie s ar e few an d b ecau se a de ci si on onth e pr op er d iv is io n o f au th or it y be twee n t he arb it rat oran d t he FCIC ha s t he po te nt ia l to affe ctsi gn ifi can tl y

th e adm in is tra ti onof t he fed eral st atut ory sch em e, we in vi te d t he Gov ern m en t t o s ub m ita br ie f as am ic us cu ria e. W it h t he vi ews of t he 2 1 Uni te d S ta te s n ow i n h an d, we p ro ceedto our co ns id erat io n o f th e is su es .
B. W e b eg in with abri ef d is cu ss io n o f th e FCI C an d i ts rol e in cro p i ns ur an ce ag reem en ts . The FC IC o pe rat es un de r th e supe rv is io n o f th e Ri skMan ag em en t Age nc y of t he Uni te d S ta te s Dep art m en t o f Agr ic ul tu re. Itwas e st ab li sh edby (...continued) 2 0 may be unenf orce able” under subse ction 4. Appellant’s B r. 21. The F CI C appea rs to agree with Mr. Davis that the c ase doe s pose an inter pretive—r ather

than simply

fac tual—issue; however , it submits t hat the issue alr eady has bee n resolved in a

binding inter

pretation that gr ants the insurer the authority

to act as it did. The c ourt expresses its sincere thanks to the United States for a ccepting its invitation 2 1 and submitting a ve ry

fine brie f. It has bee n of great assistance in our e valuation of this case
. 17 Case: 13-10648 Date Filed: 08/06/2014 Page: 17 of 26se ct io n 5 03 of t he Fed eral Cro p In su ran ce Act(“ FCIA” or t he “ Act” ), ch . 30 , 52

St at . 72 (19 38 ) (co di fie d a s amend edat 7 U.S.C. § 1 50 3) . See g en eral ly 7 U.S.C. §§ 15 01 -2 4 & 15 31 . The FC IC ac ts , when cert ai n e li gi bi li ty con di ti on s ar e m et , as rei ns ur er o n c ro p i ns ur an ce p ol ic ie s wri tt enby app ro ve d p riv at e in su rers su ch as Pro Ag. Inord er t o qua li fy

forrei ns ur an ce thr ou gh th e FCI C, th e p ol ic ie s wri tt enby ap pr ov edpri va te in su rers m us t co m pl y with t he FCIA an d i ts acco m pa nyin g reg ul at io ns . Con se qu en tl y , “ [t]he FCIA g en eral ly establ is he s t he term s an d
co nd it io ns of i ns ur an ce, . . . eve n t ho ug h t he cro p i ns ur an ce p ol ic y is be twee n t he farm er an d a n app ro ve d i ns ur an ce p ro vi de r.” Ind eed , 7 C.F.R . § 4 57 .8 i nc lu de s 2 2 te xtfora “ Co m

m on Cro p In su ran ce Po li cy ” u se d b y in su rers , st an da rdth ro ug ho ut th e in du st ry , when th e FCI C p ro vi de s re in su ran ce. Am on g the m at te rs de te rm in ed by the FCIC are wh ere c ro p i ns ur an ce wi ll be off eredan d o n wh atcro ps , th e le ve ls of co ve rag e, th e ex pe ct edm ark etpri ces for cro ps , pre m iu m

rat es pa idto in su rers an d t he lac k o f in su rab il it y of c ert ai n ri sk s. See ge ne ral ly 7 U.S.C. § 1 50 8. Th e FCIC pro vi de s, as ne ces sa ry , in te rp ret at io ns of t he st atut e an d re gu la ti on s t o in te res te d p art ie s. Th e FCI C’s in te rp ret at io ns , is su edinth e fo rm of F in al Agen cy

Brief for the United States as Amicus Curia e SupportingAppellant at 6 [here inafter 2 2 Gov’t B r.]. 18

Case: 13-10648 Date Filed: 08/06/2014 Page: 18 of 26Dete rm in at io ns (“ FADs” ), are “ bi nd in g o n a ll pa rti ci pa nt s i n t he Fed eral cro p

in su ran ce p ro gr am .” 7 C.F .R. § 4 00 .76 5( c). Howe ve r, th e FCI C “ wil l n ot in te rp retan y

sp eci fic factua l s itua ti on or c as e.” Id . § 4 00 .76 8( a). The st an da rdlan gu ag e fo un d i n the reg ul at io ns forin cl us io n i n t he co m m on cro p i ns ur an ce co nt ractpro vi de s t ha t al l d is pu te s b etweenin su rer a ndin su redare subjec t t o m ed ia ti on an d/ or arb it rat io n. Id . § 4 57 .8 (P ol ic y § 2 0( a)(1 )). Tha t s am e pr ov is io n, h owe ve r, ex pl ic it ly requ ire s t ha t if t he di sp ut e in an y

way in vo lv es a po li cy

or p ro cedur e in te rp ret at io n, re ga rd in g wh ethe r a s pe ci fic po li cy pro vi si onor pr oc edur e is ap pl ic ab le to th e si tu at io n, h ow i t i s ap pl ic ab le , or t he m ean in g o f an y

po li cy pro vi si on or p ro cedur e, ei th er [C la im an t] or [In su rer] m

us t o bt ai n a n i nt erp ret at io n fr om FCIC inacco rd an ce wi th 7 C FR p art40 0, s ub pa rt X o r su chot he r pr oc edur es as e st ab li sh edby FCIC
. Id . W it h t hi s b ack gr ou nd , we no w tu rnto anass es sm en t o f th e p art ie s’
co nt en ti on s.
C. 1. The arb it rat orde te rm in edth atMr. Dav is ’s fai lu re t o abi de by a de ad li ne —i de nt ifi edon ly in a l et te r fro m Pro Ag t o M r. Dav is , witho utrefe ren ce t o a p art ic ul ar p ol ic y

pro vi si on m an da ti ng su ch a sc he du le fora res po ns e—ju st ifi ed 19 Case: 13-10648 Date Filed: 08/06/2014 Page: 19 of 26th e d en ia l o f anawardto Mr. Dav is . Becau se th ere i s n o s pe ci fic po li cy pro vi si on requi rin g the de ad li ne setin th e le tt er, res ol ut io n o f th e is su e requi res us to de ci de whe th er the arb it rat or ’s un ti m el in es s d eci si on res te d o n a n i nt erp ret at io n o f th e st an da rdPo li cy

an d t hu s ex ceed edhi s au th or it y by deci di ng a m at te r res erv edto th e FCI C. The Gov ern m en t, as am ic us cu ria e, ta ke s t he vi ew th atth e d is tri ctco urt
erre d i n c ha ract eri zi ng th e ti m el in es s que st io n b efo re the arb it rat oras a n in te rp ret iv e is su e th atrequi redpri orsubm is si on to th e FCI C: Whi le th e in su ran ce p ol ic y it se lf d oe s n otsp eci fy

a de ad li ne foran in su rer’s ex te ns io n o f th e ti m e in whi chto pro vi de in fo rm at io n/ do cu m en ta ti on , th e FCI C h as is su eda ru li ng th atin su rers “ ha ve th e di sc ret io n t o i m

po se a reas on ab le de ad li ne foranin su redto pro vi de do cu m en ta ti on when reque st ed .” See FAD-8 7 (M ar. 2 7, 2 00 8) , ht tp ://www.rm a.u sd a.g ov /re gs /5 33 /2 00 8/ fad -8 7.h tm l . Sin ce FADs are b in di ng inall cro p i ns ur an ce ar bi tra ti on s, 7 C.F.R. § 45 7.8 , th e arb it rat or co ul d h av e rea so nabl y

co nc lu de d t ha t Pr oAg was au th or iz edto is su e a 3 0- da y de ad li ne forDavi s t o re sp on d wi th th e reque st edin fo rm at io n, an d t o d en y Davi s’ in de m

ni ty clai m

forfai lu re to co m pl y with t ha t d ead li ne . The FC IC h adalr eady res ol ve d t ha t pa rti cu la r po li cy

is su e, an d t he arb itrat orwas n otrequi redto see k an ot he r FCIC in te rp ret at io n o n t he same iss ue . Gov ’t Br. 15
. 2 3

The district cour

t noted the exist ence of F AD-87, se e R.17 at 12, but appa rently did not 2 3 believe it answ ere d the pre cise que stion presented by the fa cts of this case . As the Gove rnment corr ectly notes, howeve r, the purpose of F ADs is to resolve inter pretive issues a cross fa ctual scena rios. 20 Case: 13-10648 Date Filed: 08/06/2014 Page: 20 of 26Iness en ce, the FCIC ag rees with M r. Dav is th atwhet he r th e in su rer c an

im po se a reas on ab le de ad li ne , no t ex pl ic it ly fou ndinth e p ol ic y , on th e rec ei ptof in fo rm at io n fr om

th e in su redis anin te rp ret iv e is su e wit hi n t he ex cl us iv e p ro vi nc e of th e FCI C. Howe ve r, th e Gov ern m en t fu rth er p oi nt s o utth atth e ag en cy alr eady ha s ex erci se d i ts pre ro ga ti ve an d p ro vi de d t he in te rp ret at io n b y m ak in g c le ar i n a n earl ie r ru li ng th atanin su rer c anim po se su ch a reas on ab le de ad li ne . W e acc or d th es e d et erm in at io ns —tha t the is su e was on e o f in te rp ret at io n a ndth atin su rers can im po se su chde ad li ne s— subs ta nt ia l wei gh t b ecau se th ey were m ad e b y

th e ag en cy ch arg edwith a dm in is tra ti on of t he st atut e. See Un it edSta te s v . Mead Co rp ., 53 3 U.S. 2 18 , 23 4, 1 21 S. Ct. 2 16 4, 2 17 5, 1 50 L. Ed. 2d29 2 (2 00 1) (“ [A]n ag en cy ’s in te rp ret at io n m ay m eri t s om e d efer en ce wh at ev er i ts form , gi ve n t he sp eci al iz edex pe rie nc e an d b ro ad er i nv es ti ga ti on s an d i nf orm at io n a va il ab le to th e ag en cy an d g iv enth e v al ue of u ni fo rm it y init s ad m in is tra ti ve an d ju di ci al
un de rs ta nd in gs of wh ata na ti on al law re qu ire s.” (c it at io n o m it te d) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) ); i d. at23 5, 1 21 S. Ct. at21 76 (“ Su ch a ru li ng m ay su rel y cla im th e m eri t o f it s wri te r’s th or ou gh ne ss , lo gi c, an d e xp ertne ss , it s fi t with p rio r in te rp ret at io ns , andan y ot he r so ur ces of we ig ht .”); see als o R en o v . Kor ay , 51 5 U.S. 5 0, 6 1, 1 15 S. Ct. 2 02 1, 2 02 7, 1 32 L. Ed. 2d46 (19 95 ) (h ol di ng th atan“ in te rn al ag en cy

gu id el in e, whi ch is ak into an‘ in te rp ret iv e ru le ’” no t

21 Case: 13-10648 Date Filed: 08/06/2014 Page: 21 of 26subjec t t o n ot ic e-an d- co m m en t ru le -m ak in g, “ is st il l en ti tl edto so m e d efer en ce”)
. Bec au se th e FCI C h as de te rm in ed , as a n i nt erp ret iv e m at te r, th atin su rerim po se d d ead li ne s ar e co m

pa ti bl e wit h t he pu rp os es of t he st atut ory an d reg ul at ory

sch em e, th e in di vi du al factua l d et erm in at io ns th atsu ch a de ad li ne was im po se d andth at , inth e sp eci fic cir cu m st an ces of t he tra ns act io n, i ts im po si ti on was reas on ab le were m at te rs forth e arb it rat or . The arb it rat orth eref or e act edwell withi n h is di sc ret io n i n c on cl ud in g t ha t, b ecau se Mr. Dav is ha d fa il edto co m pl y with t he th irty -d ay

de ad li ne an d thu s b reac he d h is du ty und er the co nt ract , Pro Ag
was withi n i ts rig ht s t o d et erm in e th atth e cl ai m ou gh t t o b e d en ie d. Insu m , bec au se th e FCI C in FAD-87 alr eady ha s au th or iz edth e in su rer t o

“ im po se a reas on ab le de ad li ne foranin su redto pro vi de do cu m en ta ti onwhen reque st ed ,” fu rth er s ub m is si on of t he is su e to th e FCI C was no t re qu ire d. Acco rd in gl y , th e arb it rat ordi d n otex ceedhi s au th or ity when he fou ndth atth e fai lu re t o abi de by the de ad li ne inth e Ju ne 12 th let te r was a su ffi ci en t b as is for de ni al of t he cla im
. 2 4
The district cour

t char acte rized the arbitrator’s dec ision as focusingsolely on the 2 4 timeliness of Mr. Davis’s submission; the court ruled that “the ar bitrator neve r made a finding that the information submitted to ProAg w as insufficie nt, but found instead that Davis did not submit what the insurance company reque sted within the policy ’s and the le tter’s de adlines.” R.17 at 13. ProAgdisputes this charac terization. In its view, the arbitrator also re ache d, and decide d, that there was insuffic ient evidenc e to support an a war d for Mr. D avis. Mr. Davis submits t hat the ar

bitrator did not rea ch this question. (continued...) 22 Case: 13-10648 Date Filed: 08/06/2014 Page: 22 of 262.

Bec au se we fin d n o b as is forov erturni ng th e arb it rat or ’s awardas o ut si de hi s au th or it y , we m

us t co ns id er Mr . Davi s’s al te rn at e arg um en t tha t the fai lu re o f th e arb it rat orto is su e th e awardwithi n the th irt y -d ay ti m el in e p ro vi de d i n R

ul e 4 1 of th e AAA is gro un ds forva catur . 2 5 Lik e th e d is tri ctco urt, we ar e p ers ua de d tha t Lo dg e No. 7 25 , Int ern at io na l Ass oc ia ti on of M ach in is ts v. Mo on ey Airc raft , Inc ., 41 0 F .2d68 1, 6 83 (5t h C ir. 19 69 ), fo recl os es Mr. Dav is ’s arg um en t. InLod ge No. 7 25 , th e arb it rat io n
(...continued) 2 4 Havingdeter

mined that the ar

bitrator ac ted within his authority in determiningthat Mr. Davis did not submit the required inf ormation in a timely

manner and that his failure to do so justified ProAg ’s denial of his claim, we ne ed not re ach this question. The de cision of the arbitrator is less than clea r on this issue. Whi le we c an see an arguable ba sis for the district court’s vie w, a c ontrary

rea ding is a lso quite plausible. At the time of the proc eeding s befor e the a rbitrator, Rule 41 of

the AAA Rules 2 5 provided: R-41. Time of Awa

rd The a war d shall be made promptly by the ar bitrator and, unle ss otherwise a gree d by the par ties or spec ified by

law, no later

than 30 day s from the date of c losing the hea ring , or, if ora l hearings ha ve bee n waived, f

rom the date of the AAA’s transmittal of the final state ments and proof s to the arbitrator. Americ an Ar

bitration Association, Commercial Ar bitration Rules and Mediation Proce dures 21 (2009), https://www.adr.org/aaa /ShowPDF? url=/cs/groups/commerc ial/documents/ document/z2uy

/mde1/~edisp/adrstag e2015619.pdf. N early identical languag e appe ars in the 2013 version of the rules at Rule 45. See Americ an Ar bitration Association, Commercial Arbitration Rules and Me diation Procedure s 27 (2013) https://www.adr.org/aaa / ShowProperty ? nodeI d=/UCM/ADRSTG_004103&r evision=latestre lease d. 23 Case: 13-10648 Date Filed: 08/06/2014 Page: 23 of 26ag reem en t p ro vi de d ath ree- da y de ad li ne foris su an ce o f anaward , andth e arb it rat ordi d n otactun ti l fo rty-fou r da y s h adpa ss ed . Once t he de ci si on adve rs e to th e em pl oyer was h an de d d own , itpro te st edth atth e d eci si on was o utof the ti m e fra m e p ro vi de d b y

th e co nt ractan d t he refo re i nv al id . The co urt d is ag reed , fir stfin di ng waiv er i n t he em pl oyer’s dec is io n n otto pro te stth e laps e o f ti m e u nt il a d eci si on was re nd ered . It co nt in ue d, “ Mo reo ve r, we wou ldbe ex tre m el y lo ath t o pe na li ze the be ne fic iary

of the awardbe cau se of t he lap se of t im e o ve r whi ch he ha d n o p os si bl e co nt ro l. Thi s i s es pe ci al ly true be cau se of t he ex tre m e sh ortn es s of th e p eri od .” Id . Becau se th e co urt b as edit s co nc lu si on insi gn ifi can t p arton waiv er, i t fu rth er h el d t ha t the same deci si on wou ldob ta in whet he r th e awardwere on ly one day

be y on d t he pe rio d o r fo rty-on e. See i d. & n.4
. W e th in k i t s uf

fic ie ntto ad d t ha t the AAA Rul es in cl ud e a wai ve r pr ov is io n. Sp eci fic al ly, atth e ti m e o f th e awardinth e p res en t ca se , Rul e 3 7 o f th e Co m m erci al Arbi tra ti on Ru le s an d M ed ia ti on Pro cedur es pro vi de d: “ Any party who pro ceed s wi th th e arb it rat io n a fte r kn owl ed ge th atan y pro vi si on or requi rem en t o f th es e ru le s h as no t b een co m pl ie d wi th an d wh o fa il s t o s ta te an ob jecti onin writ in g s ha ll be de em edto ha ve waiv edth e ri gh t t o o bjec t.” 2 6
Americ an Ar

bitration Association, Commercial Ar bitration Rules and Mediation 2 6 Procedur es 21 (2009) , https://www.adr .org/aaa /ShowPDF? url=/cs/groups/commerc ial/ (continued...) 24 Case: 13-10648 Date Filed: 08/06/2014 Page: 24 of 26Mr. Dav is di d n otob ject a t the ex pi rat io n o f th e th irt y -d ay pe rio d. No r di d h e ob ject wh enth e u nt im el y

de ci si on was i ss ue d t hr ee d ay s l at er. In st ead , he wai te d
un ti l h e fi le d t hi s ac ti on inth e d is tri ctco urt. Mo reo ve r, he ha s m ad e n o e ffo rt t o sh ow t ha t h e was in an y

way pre jud ic edby the de la y . Accor di ng ly, we se e n o ba si s fo r ov erturni ng th e arb it rat or ’s dec is io n b as edon th e fai lu re t o abi de by the AAA rul es go ve rn in g t he ti m e p eri odfor is su an ce o f a d eci si on .
Con cl us io n Bec au se th e FCI C al read y ha d i ss ue d abi nd in g o pi ni on au th or iz in g a n in su rer t o s etreas on ab le de ad li ne s fo r th e subm is si on of r eque st eddo cu m en ta ti on , th e arb it rat ordi d n otex ceedhi s au th or it y inba si ng hi s d eci si on on th e ti m el in es s of Mr. Dav is ’s cla im

do cum en ta ti on . Furt he rm or e, we sh al l n otov erturn t he arb it rat or ’s awardwher e th e lo si ng party fail edto ob ject i m m ed ia te ly upo n t he
ex pi rat io n o f th e d ead li ne , esp eci al ly whe re the re h as be enno de m on st rat io n o f
an y pre jud ic e ari si ng fro m

th e d el ay . Accor di ng ly, th e o rd er o f th e d is tri ctco urt
va cat in g t he arb itrat io n a wardis rev ers ed . The ca se is rem an de d t o t he di st ric t
co urt fo r pr oc eed in gs co ns is te ntwith t hi s o pi ni on .
(...continued) 2 6 documents/document/z2uy /mde1/~edisp/adrstag e2015619.pdf.

25 Case: 13-10648 Date Filed: 08/06/2014 Page: 25 of 26REVERSED an d R EMANDED.

26 Case: 13-10648 Date Filed: 08/06/2014 Page: 26 of 26