Matter of Chin v State Farm Ins. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 04186 (2d Dept. 2010)
“Consistent with the public policy in favor of arbitration, the grounds specified in CPLR 7511 for vacating or modifying a no-fault arbitration award are few in number and narrowly applied” (Matter of Mercury Cas. Co. v Healthmakers Med. Group, P.C., 67 AD3d 1017, 1017). “An arbitration award can be vacated by a court pursuant to CPLR 7511(b) on only three narrow grounds: if it is clearly violative of a strong public policy, if it is totally or completely irrational, or if it manifestly exceeds a specific, enumerated limitation on the arbitrator’s power” (Matter of Erin Constr. & Dev. Co., Inc. v Meltzer, 58 AD3d 729, 729; see Matter of United Fedn. of Teachers, Local 2, AFT, AFL-CIO v Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of N.Y., 1 NY3d 72, 79; Matter of Board of Educ. of Arlington Cent. School Dist. v Arlington Teachers Assn., 78 NY2d 33, 37; Cifuentes v Rose & Thistle, Ltd., 32 AD3d 816; Matter of Rockland County Bd. of Coop. Educ. Servs. v BOCES Staff Assn., 308 AD2d 452, 453). “An award is irrational if there is no proof whatever to justify the award'” (Matter of Erin Constr. & Dev. Co., Inc. v Meltzer, 58 AD3d at 730, quoting Matter of Peckerman v D & D Assoc., 165 AD2d 289, 296). “Even if the arbitrators misapply substantive rules of law or make an error of fact, unless one of the three narrow grounds applies in the particular case, the award will not be vacated” (Matter of Erin Constr. & Dev. Co., Inc. v Meltzer, 58 AD3d at 730; see Wien & Malkin LLP v Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 6 NY3d 471; Matter of Silverman [Benmor Coats], 61 NY2d 299, 308; Matter of Sprinzen [Nomberg], 46 NY2d 623, 629; Cifuentes v Rose & Thistle, Ltd., 32 AD3d at 821). “An arbitrator is not bound by principles of substantive law or rules of evidence, and may do justice and apply his or her own sense of law and equity to the facts as he or she finds them to be.”
If you think an arbitrator is going to be unfair, it is probably best to order a stenographer and obtain a transcript of the proceeding. A proper record never lies.
5 Responses
A very educational post. You have to agree with the logic — if you pick arbitration. The last line in quotes. Is it from one of the cited to cases. Of course I have something iconoclastic re the all but done changes to the No Fault Law in the back of my mind. See your friends over at NYFair
I suppose I am partly to blame through appealing In the Matter of Mercury v. Healthmakers. The whole opinion in this case digresses from Healthmakers onward. You have to understand, however, that the lower arbitrator in Healthmakers did everything in her power to see that we would lose that arbitration. If you read the record on appeal, I think you will see why I say that. That was the impetus behind that appeal. Just so you know, I do not appeal every case I lose. I only appeal those that I think were completely off the mark or those cases where I think the law should evolve.
Nonetheless, I did not anticipate a very unreceptive Appellate Division in Healthmakers. But considering how certain members of the judiciary want to push more no-fault into arbitration, it makes sense that the Appellate Division, among other courts, is trying to insulate the finality of arbitration awards. While I disagree with the premise of that viewpoint, i.e., expediency as opposed to justice, I understand where the Appellate Division is coming from.
Thus, you have this case (which was actually favorable to the carrier) and the last three Second Department cases involving no-fault arbitrations where the court is telling the bar that they better have an exceptional reason to take a no-fault arbitration matter up to the Second Department.
I am not sure what my friends at NY Fair have to do with my post, but they are zealous advocates for their cause.
J.T. NY Fair is pretty confident that the legislature has made up their mind. We are heading for mandatory arbitration. Your case and cases cited therein do not basically state, but blatantly state: there is no law in arbitration … no rules.
I have read Montgomery and I think it stinks. Personal health = economic = rational basis test = legislature (and this is me talking — that side show of freaks and felons) can mess you up citizens; the courts will not help.
Now with mandatory arb we have the following: We force you to buy no fault insurance from private insurance companies. Your common law right to sue in negligence has been taken away. But your medical bills will be promptly paid — except they are not. So you have to go to court to sue. Except now you cannot go to court to sue for payment of your medical bills. You have to go to arbitration. In arbitration the arbitrators are paid by the insurance companies. In addition there is no law in arbitration, just whim — as you attest.
You cannot force us to buy a product from a corporation. Take away our right to sue. And when the corporation refuses to pay benefits you can’t make us go before the arbitrator — a quasi employee of the insurance company — who does not have to apply law; you can’t force us to go before this guy — that’s unconstitutional and fascist (melding of government and corporations see ins dept.)
I have another windmill J.T.
I have had one carrier Article 75 numerous cases all pretty much based on the same issues and I have had crazy decisions vacating the awards on whim. There is plenty of whim in court.They do what they want and do not follow the law either.Its very frustrating when you tell the Judge they are totally wrong on the law and they say appeal me IDC.
also mandatory arb will lead to court anyway. every case will be trial de novo