[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 20-14365

____________________

JOHN PEEBLES, 

ALLISON PEEBLES, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

THE TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL COMPANY, LP, 

Defendant-Appellee.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Alabama

D.C. Docket No. 1:19-cv-01089-JB-N

____________________

USCA11 Case: 20-14365 Date Filed: 12/14/2021 Page: 1 of 6
2 Opinion of the Court 20-14365

Before WILSON, LAGOA, and ED CARNES, Circuit Judges.

LAGOA, Circuit Judge:

John and Allison Peebles (collectively, “Peebles”) appeal the 

district court’s order vacating an arbitrator’s award of attorneys’ 

fees and litigation expenses. After careful review, and with the benefit of oral argument, we reverse the district court’s decision. 

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

On December 30, 2016, Peebles initiated arbitration against 

The Terminix International Company, Inc. (“Terminix”) by filing 

a demand for arbitration. Peebles alleged various causes of action 

in connection with Terminix’s failure to protect their home from 

termite damage. The arbitration agreement attached to the demand for arbitration was a 2014 arbitration agreement. 

Pursuant to the 2014 arbitration provision, “[a]ny claim, dispute or controversy, regarding any contract, tort, statute, or otherwise (‘Claim’), arising out of or relating to this agreement or the 

relationships among the parties” was subject to binding arbitration. 

The 2014 arbitration provision did not prohibit an award of attorneys’ fees or litigation expenses. 

On December 11, 2019, after a two-week arbitration hearing, the arbitrator found that Terminix failed to perform its obligations, and that Terminix’s conduct warranted an award of punitive 

damages. Based on these findings, the arbitrator awarded Peebles 

$883,281 in compensatory damages, including $45,000 for litigation 

USCA11 Case: 20-14365 Date Filed: 12/14/2021 Page: 2 of 6
20-14365 Opinion of the Court 3

expenses, and $883,281 in punitive damages—i.e., a one-to-one ratio of compensatory damages to punitive damages. The arbitrator 

also awarded Peebles $397,476 in attorneys’ fees. 

Peebles immediately sought to confirm the arbitration 

award in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama. Peebles attached the arbitration award and their demand

for arbitration, including the 2014 arbitration agreement, to their 

petition to confirm the arbitration award. In response, Terminix 

moved to vacate the arbitrator’s award of attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses. In support of its motion to vacate, Terminix filed a 

2010 arbitration agreement between the parties, which provided 

that “[e]ach party shall be responsible for paying its own attorneys’ 

fees, costs and expenses.” There was no evidence, however, in the 

record suggesting that the 2010 arbitration provision was ever presented to the arbitrator during the arbitration proceedings. 

On September 14, 2020, the district court vacated the arbitrator’s award of attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses. Specifically, the district court found that the arbitrator lacked authority to 

award attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses pursuant to the 2010 

arbitration agreement.1 

1 The district court also deducted $45,000 from the punitive damages award—

an amount equivalent to the $45,000 deduction to the compensatory damages 

award for litigation expenses—to maintain the arbitrator’s one-to-one ratio 

between compensatory and punitive damages. Because we reverse the district 

court’s decision vacating the arbitrator’s award, we do not need to determine 

USCA11 Case: 20-14365 Date Filed: 12/14/2021 Page: 3 of 6
4 Opinion of the Court 20-14365

Peebles moved to vacate the district court’s order under 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b) and argued that the district court 

erred in relying on the 2010 arbitration provision as opposed to the 

2014 arbitration provision, which was the only arbitration provision included in their demand for arbitration. The district court 

denied that motion, and Peebles timely appealed. 

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW 

When reviewing a district court’s order vacating an arbitration award, we review the district court’s findings of fact for clear 

error and its legal conclusions de novo. Johnson v. Directory Assistants Inc., 797 F.3d 1294, 1298-99 (11th Cir. 2015). A district 

court’s determination that an arbitrator exceeded his authority is 

“a legal determination that we review de novo.” Gherardi v. 

Citigroup Glob. Mkts. Inc., 975 F.3d 1232, 1236 (11th Cir. 2020).

III. ANALYSIS 

Under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), “federal courts 

have limited authority to vacate or modify an arbitration award.”

Id. Federal courts can only vacate an arbitration award in the “very 

unusual circumstances” described in the statute. Id. (quoting First 

Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 942 (1995)). 

“There is a presumption under the FAA that arbitration awards will 

be confirmed, and ‘federal courts should defer to an arbitrator’s 

whether the district court erred by reducing the punitive damages award sua 

sponte. 

USCA11 Case: 20-14365 Date Filed: 12/14/2021 Page: 4 of 6
20-14365 Opinion of the Court 5

decision whenever possible.’” Frazier v. CitiFinancial Corp., LLC, 

604 F.3d 1313, 1321 (11th Cir. 2010) (quoting B.L. Harbert Int’l, 

LLC v. Hercules Steel Co., 441 F.3d 905, 909 (11th Cir. 2006)). 

Here, the district court vacated the arbitration award under 

9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(4) after finding that the arbitrator’s award of attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses was not authorized by the terms 

of the arbitration provision submitted to the district court by Terminix in its motion to vacate. “Following Supreme Court precedent, we have interpreted § 10(a)(4)’s language . . . very narrowly.” 

Gherardi, 975 F.3d at 1237. Vacatur under § 10(a)(4) “is permitted 

only when an arbitrator ‘strays from interpretation and application 

of the agreement and effectively dispenses his own brand of industrial justice.’” Id. (quoting Major League Baseball Players Ass’n v. 

Garvey, 532 U.S. 504, 509 (2001)). 

The 2014 arbitration provision—the only arbitration provision before the arbitrator—granted the arbitrator broad authority 

to resolve all disputes between Peebles and Terminix and did not 

prohibit the arbitrator from awarding attorneys’ fees and litigation 

expenses. Moreover, Peebles sought an award of attorneys’ fees 

and litigation costs within their demand for arbitration, and the 

availability of such an award was extensively litigated throughout 

arbitration. Therefore, “the arbitrator did not exceed his authority 

or award upon a matter not submitted to him.” Frazier, 604 F.3d 

at 1321. Indeed, “the legal merits of the dispute were the arbitrators’ concern, not the district court’s or ours,” this is “[b]ecause the 

arbitrators’ decision was an interpretation of the contract, rather 

USCA11 Case: 20-14365 Date Filed: 12/14/2021 Page: 5 of 6
6 Opinion of the Court 20-14365

than an expansion of the arbitrable issues, it stands on appeal.” See 

Gherardi, 975 F.3d at 1239.

Because the district court clearly erred in relying on the 2010 

arbitration provision—a provision not before the arbitrator or at 

issue in the arbitration—we reverse the district court’s order vacating parts of the arbitrator’s award, and on remand, the arbitrator’s 

award in favor of the Peebles shall be reinstated in full. 

REVERSED AND REMANDED. 

USCA11 Case: 20-14365 Date Filed: 12/14/2021 Page: 6 of 6