Arbitration: Trial Court Has Authority To Consolidate Contractual Arbitration
Mercury Insurance v. Superior Court (Cal. 11/9/98)

The Superior Court of San Bernardino County consolidated actions for arbitration and trial after an insured party brought personal injury action and sought uninsured motorist benefits.  The insurer, Mercury Insurance Group, appealed and the Supreme Court affirmed holding that the trial court has authority to consolidate a contractual arbitration
proceeding between an insurer and an insured as to uninsured motorist coverage in the insured's pending action against third parties for all purposes, including trial, in order to avoid conflicting rulings on a common issue of law or fact.
[Full Decision on Westlaw: 1998 WL 774455]

Arbitration: Statute Relied On To Compel Arbitration Found To Be Unconstitutional As Applied
Angostura International Ltd. v. Melemed (D. Minn. 11/6/98)

Angostura, a food producer, discontinued its long term, unwritten, sales relationship with its brokerage company, Melemed.  Angostura sued to resolve the parties rights resulting from the termination and Melemed sought to compel arbitration pursuant to the Minnesota Sales Representative Act (MSRA).  The MSRA provides that representative may either arbitrate or proceed in court, while a manufacturer may only arbitrate a dispute.  The act further provides that it applies to any such agreement entered into or renewed on or after August 1, 1990.  The District Court found that the statute as applied to this case, violated the Contracts Clause of the Constitution by retroactively applying to, and substantially impairing, the existing contract that was “renewed” by the mere continuation of the unwritten agreement without having a significant and legitimate public purpose in doing so.
[Full Decision on Westlaw: 1998 WL 783284]

Arbitration: Award Vacated & Case Remanded Because Decision May Not Have Been Based On Relevant Facts & Circumstances
Bell Packaging Corp. V. Graphic Communications International Union Local 415-S
(N.D. Ill. 10/22/98)

Union member grieved after being fired for failing a second drug test that she was not given an opportunity for rehabilitation and that the test results were improperly publicized.  When the dispute was submitted to arbitration, the union raised new objections, contending that the drug test was flawed because the signature on the chain of custody form was not the grievants, nor was the urine sample continuously in her sight until sealed as required by the testing procedure.  Although Bell objected to this new complaint, it was assured by the arbitrator that they would be given an opportunity to rebut the evidence if he found that the evidence was properly raised.  Through the course of the hearing, the arbitrator apparently expressed no conclusions regarding the new evidence.  The arbitrator found for the grievant.  In his opinion, the arbitrator cited Bell’s complete lack of rebuttal evidence and Bell appealed the decision.  In remanding the case back to arbitration to determine whether Bell should be given an opportunity to present rebuttal evidence, the court found that arbitrator’s muddled conclusion did not offer the court a clear record to review.
[Full Decision on Westlaw: 1998 WL 748270]

Arbitration: Presumption Of Causation Must Be Applied In Arbitration
A.H. Robins Company, Inc. v. Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust (4th Cir. 10/26/98)

Lenore Widmark, a Dalkon Shield claimant decided to resolve her claim against A.H. Robins Company through binding arbitration.  The arbitrator issued an unfavorable decision, concluding that her pelvic inflammatory disease was not the result of her use of the Dalkon Shield.  Widmark filed a motion to vacate the arbitrator’s decision.  The district court denied the motion and Widmark appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.  The Court held that Widmark was entitled to a presumption of causation, which the arbitrator failed to apply.  The presumption of causation in arbitration was established in a prior proceeding and requires that the claimant establish use of the Dalkon Shield and a pelvic inflammatory disease.  Because Widmark established both of these elements and the arbitrator failed to apply the presumption the Court vacated the award.
[Full Decision on Westlaw: 1998 WL 746854]

ADR Online: Mediation Law Project Website

The Mediation Law Project, a joint project of the American Bar Association Section of Dispute Resolution and the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, has established an Internet web site to make access to its work and participants
broadly available to the public.  The site will allow the many mediation and other dispute resolution professionals who are interested in the work of the Drafting Committees to keep up with their progress and provide comments and other feedback when they desire.

Details: http://www.stanford.edu/group/sccn/mediation

ADR Online: Arbitration Of Antitrust Disputes
By Lawrence W. Newman and Michael Burrows

Although it is difficult to assess statistically the frequency with which antitrust claims have been subject to arbitration, recent cases and commentary have discussed the most effective ways in which antitrust claims may be handled in arbitration.  This article summarizes the most important cases in this complicated area.

Details: http://www.ljextra.com/practice/internat/0519intarb.html

ADR Online: Expanded Review Of Arbitration Decisions
By William Nortman and Franklin D. Ormsten

An appeal decided late last year by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit may well presage a new era marked by more intensely litigated arbitrations and by a growing expansion of judicial review for arbitration decisions. Montes v. Shearson Lehman Brothers

Details: http://www.ljx.com/practice/arbitration/0709arbrev.html

ADR Announcement: ADR Act Of 1998

President Clinton signed the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of
1998, HR 3528, on October 30.  This is the law that requires each federal
district court to devise and implement its own ADR program and to
encourage and promote use of ADR in its district.

Details: http://thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas2.html