Commonwealth Coatings Corp. v. Continental Casualty Co., 6857.

Decision Date27 September 1967
Docket NumberNo. 6857.,6857.
Citation382 F.2d 1010
PartiesCOMMONWEALTH COATINGS CORPORATION, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY et al., Defendants, Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit

Emanuel Harris, New York City, with whom Carlos A. Romero Barcelo, San Juan, P. R., Max E. Greenberg, New York City, and Segurola, Romero & Toledo, San Juan, P. R., were on the brief, for appellant.

Overton A. Currie, Atlanta, Ga., with whom Federico Ramirez-Ros, Santurce, P. R., Edward H. Wasson, Jr., Atlanta, Ga., Ramirez, Segal & Latimer, Santurce, P. R., and Smith, Currie & Hancock, Atlanta, Ga., were on the brief, for appellees.

Before ALDRICH, Chief Judge, McENTEE and COFFIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the losing party to an arbitration award in which he invokes the provisions of 9 U.S.C. § 10 (1964). The sole ground of the appeal is the failure of one Capacete, the impartial arbitrator selected by the other two, and of appellee Samford, the successful party, to disclose the past relationship between Capacete and Samford. Briefly, this relationship was as follows. Capacete was a majority owner of Foundation Engineering Company of Puerto Rico, a firm of very broad activities in the community and which, over a period of years, performed drilling operations for foundation investigations and conducted laboratory testing of construction materials for Samford. These services, performed by the firm under Capacete's general supervision, and to some extent requiring his direct intervention, were in several instances rendered with regard to the projects involved in the arbitration. Capacete also did some work for the architects on the projects. The payments received were a very small part of Capacete's income for the years involved, and none of the services related to matters in question in the arbitration, or was rendered during the proceedings. It is appellee's position that there was no duty to disclose, and that if appellant desired knowledge as to the existence of such past relationships it was incumbent upon him to inquire, citing Ilios Shipping & Trading Corp. v. American Anthracite & Bituminous Coal Corp., D.C.N.Y., 1957, 148 F. Supp. 698, aff'd, 2 Cir., 245 F.2d 873.

In our opinion there is a difficult line between what should, in good faith, be volunteered, and what may be left for inquiry. We may agree with appellant that where there is a disturbingly close relationship the very failure to make...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Positive Software Solutions v. New Century Mortg.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • January 18, 2007
    ...1. Commonwealth Coatings Corp. v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 393 U.S. 145, 89 S.Ct. 337, 21 L.Ed.2d 301 (1968). 2. Commonwealth Coatings Corp. v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 382 F.2d 1010 (1st Cir.1967). 3. Apperson, 879 F.2d at 1358 n. 19; Morelite Constr. Corp., 748 F.2d at 83; Merit Insurance Co., 714 F.2d a......
  • Commonwealth Coatings Corp v. Continental Casualty Co
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • November 18, 1968
    ...the award on this ground, among others, but the District Court refused to set aside the award. The Court of Appeals affirmed, 382 F.2d 1010 (C.A.1st Cir. 1967), and we granted certiorari, 390 U.S. 979, 88 S.Ct. 1098, 19 L.Ed.2d 1276 In 1925 Congress enacted the United States Arbitration Act......
  • Garfield & Co. v. Wiest
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • October 20, 1970
    ...bias, or fraud. 393 U.S. at 152, 89 S.Ct. 337, 21 L.Ed.2d 301 (dissenting opinion of Fortas, J.), and see lower court opinion, 382 F.2d 1010, 1012 (1 Cir. 1967). Initially we must consider whether Garfield's objections to the arbitration panel were properly and timely raised. It is well set......
  • Fuller v. Highway Truck Drivers and Helpers Local 107, 18050.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • June 10, 1970
    ...the decision of the Committee." (Emphasis in the original.) 6 This case was decided by the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, 382 F.2d 1010 (1967). The facts were as follows: One Capacete was a majority owner of Foundation Engineering Company of Puerto Rico (Foundation) which, over a p......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT