Skip to Navigation
The Collaborative Clearinghouse for Lawsuits and Other Claims Against ACE Group Insurance Companies

COMBINED INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA v. DAVIS

ATTENTION: It is possible that this information may no longer be current and therefore may be inaccurate. The index contains both open and closed cases and is not a complete list of cases in which an ACE Insurance Group company is involved. This information is provided to give interested persons an idea of the issues disputed in the indexed cases. For a full understanding of a case, one should read the rest of the court file, including the response. For the most up-to-date and complete information on a case, visit www.pacer.gov or contact the clerk of the relevant court.

Case Number: 
2:14-cv-02043 Search Pacer
Court Type: 
Federal
US District Court: 
Central District of Illinois
Date Filed: 
Mar 11 2014

MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD
AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM
Based upon the award of the Arbitrator, as provided in the attached documents,
Petitioner, Combined Insurance Company of America ("Combined") requests that the Court
confirm the arbitration award as a judgment and enter judgment against Respondent Julie Davis.
I. Statement of Facts
On or about November 14, 2011, Petitioner and Respondent entered into an agreement
which provided that the parties would resolve any claims arising out of or related to
Respondent's employment or the termination thereof by arbitration. See Exhibit 1(A) hereto.
II. Procedural Background and Basis for Jurisdiction
On or about April 30, 2013 Respondent filed an arbitration demand with the American
Arbitration Association ("AAA") claiming that Petitioner, her employer, discriminated against
her on the basis of her sex by subjecting her to a hostile work environment in violation of Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. See Ex. 1(B) hereto. On October 29, 2013, a hearing was
held before Arbitrator Francis Pennington in St. Louis, Missouri, wherein live witnesses were
called and evidence was presented. See Ex. 1(C) hereto. On January 6, 2014, the Arbitrator
issued an Award and Decision ("Award") granting judgment to Petitioner on all of Respondent's
claims. See Ex. 1(D) hereto. Petitioner now moves to confirm this Award.
This Court has jurisdiction of this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the
underlying civil action involved claims arising under the laws of the United States.
III. Legal Authority
The Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), 9 U.S.C. § 9, provides that "within one year after
the award is made any party to the arbitration may apply to the court so specified for an order
confirming the award, and thereupon the court must grant such an order unless the award is
vacated, modified, or corrected." Accordingly, this Court has the obligation to confirm
Petitioner's arbitration Award into a judgment. See Doctor's Assocs., Inc. v. Cassarotto, 517
U.S. 681 (1996) (stating purpose of FAA is to ensure private agreements to arbitrate are
enforced); Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos. v. Dobson, 513 U.S. 265 (1995) ("[T]he basic purpose of
the Federal Arbitration Act is to overcome courts' refusals to enforce agreements to arbitrate.");
Southland Corp. v. Keating, 465 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1984) (holding that FAA preempts state law and
state courts cannot apply state statutes that invalidate arbitration agreements).
The standard of review of an arbitrator's decision by the court is very narrow. The scope
of review is limited, and the court may not examine the merits of the decision except to the
extent that the award exceeds the agreement of the parties. See Burchell v.Marsh, 58 U.S. 344,
349 (1854) (appropriate scope of judicial review is whether award is honest decision made
within the scope of the arbitrator's power, and a court will not otherwise set aside award for
error). The only grounds on which a court will overturn an arbitration award is when the
complaining party demonstrates that the arbitrator demonstrated a manifest disregard for the
applicable law or the award was obtained by fraud or other corruption. Nat 7 Wrecking Co. v.
Int'l Broth, of Teamsters, Local 731, 990 F.2d 957, 961 (7th Cir. 1993), citing Hill v. Norfolk
and Western Ry. Co., 814 F.2d 1192, 1195 (7th Cir. 1987). There is no allegation in this case that
the arbitrator manifestly disregarded applicable law or of fraud or corruption.
Here, the Arbitrator, having considered the pleadings, testimony, and other evidence
presented at the hearing, determined that judgment was warranted with respect to all of
Respondent's claims under the relevant law. Thereafter, on January 6, 2014, he issued an
Award, granting judgment to Petitioner and against Respondent. See Ex. 1(D). Petitioner now
requests that this Motion to Confirm be granted.
IV. Conclusion
Petitioner respectfully requests an order confirming the arbitration award into a judgment
for Petitioner Combined Insurance Company of America, and against Respondent Julie Davis.
 

The provided text is an excerpt from a document filed in this case. For a full understanding of the case, one should read the complete court file, including the response.

Javascript is required to view this map.