Robinson v. Omni General Contractors, LLC

• Decision Date: 14 March 2018
• Docket Number: HHDCV146055853S
• Court: Connecticut Superior Court
• Parties: Lamont ROBINSON v. OMNI GENERAL CONTRACTORS, LLC et al.

Lamont ROBINSON v. OMNI GENERAL CONTRACTORS, LLC et al.

No. HHDCV146055853S

Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Hartford, Hartford

March 14, 2018

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

OPINION

Sheridan, J.

The plaintiff, Lamont Robinson, has moved pursuant to General Statutes § 52-417 to confirm an arbitration award dated January 19, 2018 and issued by Arbitrator John C. Zaccaro Jr., through the auspices of the American Arbitration Association, in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of $137,116.02. The defendants, Omni General Contractors, LLC Omni Contractors, LLC d/b/a USA Water & Fire and Neil Ranciato, have filed a motion to vacate the arbitration award pursuant to General Statutes § 52-418. The parties were heard at oral argument on March 12, 2018.

" Judicial review of arbitral decisions is narrowly confined." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) AFSCME Council 4, Local 2663 v. Dept. of Children & Families, 317 Conn. 238, 249, 117 A.3d 470 (2015). " Because we favor arbitration as a means of settling private disputes, we undertake judicial review of arbitration awards in a manner designed to minimize interference with an efficient and economical system of alternative dispute resolution. Furthermore, in applying this general rule of deference to an arbitrator’s award, [e]very reasonable presumption and intendment will be made in favor of the [arbitral] award and of the arbitrators’ acts and proceedings." State v. Connecticut Employees Union Independent, 322 Conn. 713, 721, 142 A.3d 1122 (2016). Nevertheless, courts have limited authority to vacate an arbitration award under certain special circumstances set forth in General Statutes § 52-418(a). That statute provides, in pertinent part: " Upon the application of any party to an arbitration, the superior court ... shall make an order vacating the award ... (4) if the arbitrators have exceeded their powers or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made."

The defendants claim that the arbitration award in this case is based upon a " manifest disregard for the law" and should be vacated pursuant to § 52-418(a)(4). See, generally Harty v. Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., 275 Conn. 72, 85, 881 A.2d 139 (2005) (arbitration awards which fail to conform to the submission or are in " manifest disregard of the law" are subject to being vacated under § 52-418). An award may be vacated on this ground only if it involves " an egregious or patently irrational application of the law." Garrity v. McCaskey, 223 Conn. 1, 10, 612 A.2d 742 (1992). The Supreme Court emphasized that this ground for vacating an arbitration award is extremely narrow and " should be reserved for circumstances of an arbitrator’s extraordinary lack of fidelity to established legal principles." Id. " An arbitrator’s decision is not subject to being vacated for mere errors of law." Id., 11. A misapplication of the law, alone, does " not demonstrate [an] arbitrator’s egregious or patently irrational rejection of clearly controlling legal principles." Id., 11-12. Similarly, a " disagreement with the arbitrator’s interpretation and application of established legal principles" is a " far cry from the egregious or patently irrational" application of the law required to vacate an award. Otherwise, our Supreme...