Willoughby Roofing & Supply v. Kajima Intern.
Citation | 598 F. Supp. 353 |
Decision Date | 06 December 1984 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. CV82-L-5556-NE. |
Parties | WILLOUGHBY ROOFING & SUPPLY COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff, v. KAJIMA INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama |
Ralph W. Hornsby, David H. Meginniss, Hornsby, Blankenship, Robinson & Meginniss, Huntsville, Ala., for plaintiff.
Robert O. Fleming, Jr., Smith & Fleming, Atlanta, Ga., Philip A. Geddes, Decatur, Ala., for defendant.
This matter comes before the Court on the plaintiff's application for judgment. The plaintiff's fraud, breach of contract, and related claims have been submitted to an arbitration panel at the insistence of the defendant. The arbitrators, having considered those claims and having found them meritorious, have awarded the plaintiffs $41,091.25 in compensatory damages. In addition, because they found the defendant guilty of willful misrepresentations of material fact concerning the transaction at issue, the arbitrators have awarded the plaintiffs the further sum of $108,908.75 in punitive damages. However, the defendant, once the champion of the need for arbitration in this case, now expresses dissatisfaction with the results achieved by that process. Having once argued strenuously that the arbitration clause contained in the parties' contract required arbitration of all of the plaintiff's claims,1 the defendant now seeks to qualify its previous position. Now, for the first time, the defendant argues that the arbitration panel lacked authority to consider the plaintiff's claims for punitive damages. On this basis, the defendant has filed a motion to vacate the award of punitive damages.2 Because the Court is satisfied that the arbitrators' award was within the broad scope of their authority under the contract and under law, the defendant's motion will be overruled and judgment entered in accordance with the arbitral award.
This action began when the plaintiff, Willoughby Roofing & Supply Company ("Willoughby Roofing"), filed suit in the Circuit Court of Madison County, Alabama. The complaint sought compensatory and punitive damages for breach of contract, fraud, misrepresentation, and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing by the defendant, Kajima International, Inc. ("Kajima"). These claims emanated from a contract between the parties whereby plaintiff, as subcontractor, was to construct and install a roof on a building for Kajima, the general contractor on a certain construction project in Huntsville, Alabama. Willoughby Roofing had allegedly prepared its bid on the roofing job in reliance on certain representations by Kajima as to the plans and specifications that would have to be followed in constructing the roof. Following acceptance of Willoughby Roofing's bid, however, those plans and specifications were materially altered by Kajima, so much so that the cost to the plaintiff of completing the contract would have been substantially higher than anticipated. Therefore, Willoughby sought to renegotiate the contract price or to submit a new bid. Despite the fact that Willoughby had gone to considerable expense in preparing to fulfill the contract under the original specifications, Kajima chose instead to cancel the contract and engage another subcontractor to do the work.
It was at this point that the state court action was filed. Shortly thereafter, the case was removed to this Court by the defendant. Following removal, the defendant filed a motion for a stay of the proceedings pending arbitration. This motion was based upon the arbitration clause of the contract between the parties:
Convinced that the arbitration clause did indeed cover all of the plaintiff's claims, including the claims for compensatory and punitive damages for fraud, see generally Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co., 388 U.S. 395, 87 S.Ct. 1801, 18 L.Ed.2d 1270 (1967), the Court granted the stay. An arbitration panel was selected, and the plaintiff's claims were presented to that panel. Finding those claims to be meritorious, the panel awarded the plaintiff $150,000 in unspecified damages.
At this point, the defendant first objected that the arbitrators had awarded punitive damages and that to do so was beyond their authority. In order to clarify the issue, the Court on April 26, 1984, ordered that the award be resubmitted to the same arbitration panel for an explicit breakdown of the claims for which damages were provided. Subsequently, on August 21, 1984, the panel issued the following award:4
Therefore, Arbitrators, AWARD as follows:
Now unhappy with the bed it has made for itself, Kajima no longer wishes to lie in it. Consequently, Kajima now seeks an order vacating this award on two separate grounds: (1) the contract between the parties does not authorize the arbitrators to award punitive damages; and (2) even if the contract does authorize the arbitrators to make such an award, public policy prohibits them from doing so. As discussed below, however, neither of these arguments is sufficiently persuasive to displace the plenary deference traditionally owing to the decisions of arbitrators as a matter of federal policy.5
When the extremely broad arbitration clause is read in light of the equally broad grant of remedial power in Rule 43, it is clear that the parties by their contract have authorized the arbitrators to award punitive damages. Cf. Willis v. Shearson/American Express, Inc., 569 F.Supp. 821 (M.D.N.C.1983). The contract purports to place no limits on the remedial authority of the arbitrators, nor should one be implied to exclude the authority to award punitive damages. The parties certainly had the power to limit the arbitrator's ability to fashion appropriate remedies,7 but they chose not to do so. As defendants have conceded, strong federal policy requires a liberal construction of arbitration agreements, not a strict one.8 See, e.g., United Steelworkers of America v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574, 585, 80 S.Ct. 1347, 1354, 4 L.Ed.2d 1409 (1960). In resolving questions pertaining to the arbitrator's authority, courts must broadly construe the agreement and resolve all doubts in favor of the arbitrator's authority. Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 24-25, 103 S.Ct. 927, 941-942, 74 L.Ed.2d 765 (1983); Lackawanna Leather Co. v. United Food & Commercial Workers, 706 F.2d 228 (8th Cir.1983); Daniel Construction Co. v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 513, 570 F.Supp. 299 (E.D.Mo.1983), aff'd 738 F.2d 296 (8th Cir.1984). This is particularly true with respect to the remedial authority of arbitrators, for it is essential that...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Birmingham News Co. v. Horn
...Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 103 S.Ct. 927, 74 L.Ed.2d 765 (1983);Willoughby Roofing & Supply Co. v. Kajima International, Inc., 598 F.Supp. 353 (N.D.Ala.1984), affirmed, 776 F.2d 269 (11th Maxus, Inc. v. Sciacca, 598 So.2d 1376, 1379 (Ala.1992). In Fuller Co......
-
Fahnestock & Co., Inc. v. Waltman
...Duggal Int'l, Inc. v. Sallmetall, B.V., No. 84 Civ. 7170 (JMC) (S.D.N.Y. May 8, 1986); Willoughby Roofing & Supply Co. v. Kajima Int'l, Inc., 598 F.Supp. 353, 357-59 (N.D.Ala.1984), aff'd, 776 F.2d 269 (11th Cir.1985) (per curiam); Willis v. Shearson/American Express, Inc., 569 F.Supp. 821,......
-
Belco Petroleum Corp. v. AIG Oil Rig, Inc.
...(citing, Bonar v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 835 F.2d 1378, 1387 [11th Cir.], and Willoughby Roofing & Supply Co. v. Kajima International, Inc., 598 F.Supp. 353, 360 [N.D.Ala.], affd., 776 F.2d 269 [11th Cir.]. Aside from questions we have as to whether the FAA governed this arbitration, i......
-
Cavalier Mfg., Inc. v. Jackson
...709 (7th Cir.1994)("[P]arties ... can stipulate that punitive damages will not be awarded."); and Willoughby Roofing & Supply Co. v. Kajima Int'l, Inc., 598 F.Supp. 353, 365 (N.D.Ala.1984)("If parties to an arbitration agreement desire to exclude the issue of punitive damages from the consi......
-
Chapter 10
...Bonar v. Dean Witter Reynolds, 835 F.2d 1378, 1386-1387 (11th Cir. 1988); Willoughby Roofing & Supply Co. v. Kajima International, 598 F. Supp. 353, 359 (N.D. Ala. 1984), aff’d 776 F.2d 269 (11th Cir. 1985) (per curiam).[147] . Brown v. Coleman Co., 220 F.3d 1180, 16 I.E.R. Cases 966 (10th ......