Opinion ID: 1980706
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Liability Apportionment

Text: Besides asserting that the amount of the award was irrational, Gruss maintains that it constituted an impermissible apportionment of liability between the parties that was itself irrational and in manifest disregard of the law. Gruss asserts that comparative negligence is not a valid defense in commercial litigation involving alleged misrepresentation. Consequently, it contends that the panel manifestly disregarded the law of comparative negligence by apportioning liability and, for this reason, it insists that the hearing justice erred confirming the award. We need not address the propriety of assessing comparative liability in a commercial misrepresentation case because there is no evidence that such an assessment took place. That is because it is impossible for us to determine from the award whether the arbitrators understood but, nevertheless, intentionally disregarded the law. Had the panel agreed to set forth its reasoning upon the request of either party, then the award could have been viewed through the prism of rationality. However, the NASD rules do not require such analysis by the panel and the parties did not so request. See Westminster Construction Corp., 119 R.I. at 211, 376 A.2d at 711. Thus, considering the Superior Court's limited scope of judicial review, and mindful of the strong presumption in favor of the validity of arbitration awards, Purvis Systems, Inc., 788 A.2d at 1118, we conclude that the hearing justice correctly confirmed the award. Accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons, the appeal by Gruss is denied and dismissed and the judgment appealed from affirmed. The papers of this case are remanded to Superior Court.