Opinion ID: 1904770
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Scope of the Submission

Text: The London Insurers argue that Ashland did not submit the § 7(f) interest issue to the arbitrator and that the issue was therefore outside of the scope of the arbitrator's review. According to the London Insurers, Ashland conflated its uncontested claim for prejudgment interest  if it prevailed on the interpretation of § 7(g) of the CIP Agreement  with a new request for declaratory relief as to the meaning of the § 7(f) interest provision even if Ashland lost on the merits. The London Insurers argue that Ashland first raised the issue in a post-hearing brief and that the parties were denied the opportunity to conduct extensive document and deposition discovery, offer direct testimony, conduct cross-examination, and brief the issue. According to the London Insurers, Ashland even resisted their efforts to compel discovery on everything except the § 7(g) $10 million cap issue. The London Insurers further claim that the portions of Judge Williamson's Final Award relating to the § 7(f) interest issue can easily be excised without affecting the merits of the Final Award on the issue of interpretation of the § 7(g) cap provision. The CIP Agreement states that all issues will be decided under the law of Kentucky. Under Kentucky law, a court shall modify or correct an arbitration award where [t]he arbitrators have awarded upon a matter not submitted to them and the award may be corrected without affecting the merits of the decision upon the issues submitted[.] KY.REV. STAT. ANN. § 417.170(1)(b) (West 2008); see also D.C.Code § 16-4312(a)(2) (2001); 9 U.S.C. § 11(b) (2006). [5] In light of the deferential standard of review that we must afford the arbitrator in his determination of the scope of the submission, we conclude that the London Insurers' arguments must fail.