Opinion ID: 173592
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The award is confirmable under the FAA vacatur standards

Text: Ario argues that, even if the FAA vacatur standards apply, the arbitration panel had no ground on which to base its interpretation of the reinsurance treaties and exceeded [its] powers. Because Mr. Crane did not personally recall the negotiations that led to the underwriting, Ario argues, the arbitration award must be vacated because it is irrational. Applying the FAA's vacatur standards, we disagree and affirm the District Court's judgment confirming the award.
Vacatur under the FAA is governed by 9 U.S.C. § 10. If the FAA's vacatur standards apply, as they do here, these are the only grounds that can support vacatur. See Hall St., 552 U.S. at 590, 128 S.Ct. 1396. Four narrow grounds are provided in the statute: In any of the following cases the United States court in and for the district wherein the award was made may make an order vacating the award upon the application of any party to the arbitration (1) where the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means; (2) where there was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrators, or either of them; (3) where the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing, upon sufficient cause shown, or in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy; or of any other misbehavior by which the rights of any party have been prejudiced; or (4) where the arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final, and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made. 9 U.S.C. § 10(a). The sole basis Ario asserts for vacation of the award is irrationality, and he makes no contention of any corruption, fraud, partiality, or misconduct (the first three grounds). The irrationality standard comes from the fourth ground, the exceeded their powers provision. See Mut. Fire, Marine & Inland Ins. Co. v. Norad Reins. Co., 868 F.2d 52, 56 (3d Cir.1989) (noting that the court's function in confirming or vacating a commercial [arbitration] award is severely limited and interpreting what is now § 10(a)(4) (alteration in original) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)). We review the form of the relief awarded by the arbitrators to determine if the form of the arbitrators' award can be rationally derived either from the agreement between the parties or from the parties['] submissions to the arbitrators, and we do not revise the terms of the award unless they are `completely irrational.' Id. (citation omitted). So deferential is the irrationality standard under the FAA that we may not overrule an arbitrator simply because [we] disagree. . . . [T]here must be absolutely no support at all in the record justifying the arbitrator's determinations for a court to deny enforcement of an award. United Transp. Union Local 1589 v. Suburban Transit Corp., 51 F.3d 376, 379 (3d Cir.1995) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). It should be clear that the test used to probe the validity of a[n] . . . arbitrator's decision is a singularly undemanding one. Id. (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). Conversely, Ario faces a steep uphill battle to show that the arbitration award rendered here was completely irrational and could not be supported on any theory of relief.
Ario contends that the award must be vacated because Mr. Crane's testimony and the reinsurers' other immaterial documentary evidence [15] qualify only as non-evidence. (Appellant's Br. at 59.) Notably, he does not argue that there was an actual lack of testimony or evidence, but claims that it was as if [the reinsurers] had no witness at all to support [their] defense[s] in response to each of the eight theories they offer (and Ario must disprove) to justify the arbitration award. (Id.) In essence, Ario's arguments express discontent with the weighing of evidence by the arbitration panel. Their premise is that the evidence uncovered during discovery (including documents, deposition transcripts, and expert reports), the testimony and argument presented to the arbitrators during a nine-day evidentiary hearing, and the substantial briefing submitted by both parties, were not sufficient to justify the award. Yet Ario has not demonstrated why that voluminous record before the arbitration panel could not rationally lead to the arbitration award on any of the eight theories advanced by the reinsurers; instead, he focuses solely on whether the evidence should have been given any weight at all. As a reviewing court, we do not act to correct factual or legal errors made by an arbitrator, and we will uphold an award even if the arbitrator engaged in improvident, even silly, factfinding, Major League Umpires Ass'n v. Am. League of Prof'l Baseball Clubs, 357 F.3d 272, 279-80 (3d Cir.2004) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted) (applying 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(4)), so long as the arbitrator did not act completely irrational[ly], Mut. Fire, 868 F.2d at 56 (internal quotation marks omitted). While Ario may find the evidence unpersuasive, we cannot say that the arbitration panel was completely irrational in crediting the testimony of Mr. Crane and the other documents presented to the panel that Ario considers to be non-evidence. Accordingly, we affirm the District Court's confirmation of the arbitration award.