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

WESTCHESTER FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY et al v. CAROTHERS CONSTRUCTION, INC.

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: 
1:13-cv-01760 Search Pacer
ACE Group party(s): 
Court Type: 
Federal
US District Court: 
Northern District of Georgia
Date Filed: 
May 24 2013

"Petitioners Westchester Fire Insurance Company ("Westchester") and Lewis Trucking and Grading, Inc. ("Lewis") and file this their Joint Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award and to Proceed to Further Arbitration with a New Arbitrator in accordance with the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), 9 U.S.C. § 1 etseq. Pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 10(a), Petitioners request that this Court vacate a an arbitration award improperly entered against Lewis. The Award against Lewis is properly vacated under 9 U.S.C. § 10(a) because the Arbitrator, in violation of the FAA, and in contravention of an agreement as to the scope of the arbitration proceedings, exceeded his powers by determining an issue not before him and deciding that issue without having heard evidence and argument from the opposing parties. 9 U.S.C. §§ 10(a)(3)(4), 11(b). Westchester and Lewis request this Court order the parties to cause a new Arbitrator to be appointed for Phase II of the arbitration on the ground that the Arbitrator prematurely determined an issue not before him in the absence of opposition evidence and has fundamentally impaired his impartiality required by 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(2). This Motion is based upon the foregoing, the accompanying Memorandum of Law and its exhibits, the Declaration of Kenan G. Loomis, the proposed Order, and any other material that the Court may properly consider in ruling on this Motion."

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.