Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comFirm Insights
U.S. Supreme Court Ruling Provides End Around for Class-Wide Arbitration
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Date: July 5, 2013
Key Contacts
Back
Businesses will have to work a little harder to avoid class-action claims in arbitration. The U.S. Supreme Court recently resolved a key split in the circuit courts over whether class-wide arbitration is permissible absent an express provision in the contract. The decision further clarified the Court’s prior decision in Stolt-Nielsen S. A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., in which the Court held that an arbitrator could compel class procedures only if the parties have authorized them.
The Facts of the Case
In Oxford Health Plans v. Sutter, the parties agreed that the arbitrator should decide whether their contract authorized class arbitration. The relevant clause stated:
No civil action concerning any dispute arising under this Agreement shall be instituted before any court, and all such disputes shall be submitted to final and binding arbitration in New Jersey, pursuant to the rules of the American Arbitration Association with one arbitrator.
While the agreement was silent to class-wide arbitration, the arbitrator concluded that the provision’s broad language should be interpreted to authorize it. The question before the Supreme Court was whether in doing so he “exceeded [his] powers” under §10(a)(4) of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).
The Court’s Decision
The Court ultimately concluded that the arbitrator’s decision survives the limited judicial review §10(a)(4) allows. As further explained by the Court, the FAA precludes a court from determining whether that interpretation is correct. Rather, a court may only decide whether the arbitrator exceeded his powers to interpret the contract.
As Justice Elena Kagan wrote, the FAA “permits courts to vacate an arbitral decision only when the arbitrator strayed from his delegated task of interpreting a contract, not when he performed that task poorly.”
While the parties in Stolt-Nielsen had stipulated that they had never reached an agreement on class arbitration, the parties in Oxford Health Plans expressly asked the arbitrator to consider their contract and determine whether it reflected an agreement to permit class proceedings. Accordingly, the Court held that the arbitrator couldn’t be said to have exceeded his powers.
Thus, the Court did not weigh in on whether the arbitrator made the right call. “All we say is that convincing a court of an arbitrator’s error — even his grave error — is not enough. So long as the arbitrator was ‘arguably construing’ the contract — which this one was — a court may not correct his mistakes under §10(a)(4),” Kagan added.
The Practical Implications
As this case makes clear, businesses looking to prohibit class action claims in arbitration should include express provisions in the contract. This helps ensure that an arbitrator will not interpret silence on this key term as acquiescence. If the parties cannot reach an agreement, it may also be helpful to memorialize this in the agreement in order to bring any resulting litigation under the more favorable purview of Stolt-Nielsen.
If you have any questions about this case or would like to discuss the legal issues involved, please contact me, Christine Vanek, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Related Posts
See all
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
Author: Dan Brecher
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
Author: Ronald S. Bienstock
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
Author: Patrick T. Conlon
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
U.S. Supreme Court Ruling Provides End Around for Class-Wide Arbitration
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Businesses will have to work a little harder to avoid class-action claims in arbitration. The U.S. Supreme Court recently resolved a key split in the circuit courts over whether class-wide arbitration is permissible absent an express provision in the contract. The decision further clarified the Court’s prior decision in Stolt-Nielsen S. A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., in which the Court held that an arbitrator could compel class procedures only if the parties have authorized them.
The Facts of the Case
In Oxford Health Plans v. Sutter, the parties agreed that the arbitrator should decide whether their contract authorized class arbitration. The relevant clause stated:
No civil action concerning any dispute arising under this Agreement shall be instituted before any court, and all such disputes shall be submitted to final and binding arbitration in New Jersey, pursuant to the rules of the American Arbitration Association with one arbitrator.
While the agreement was silent to class-wide arbitration, the arbitrator concluded that the provision’s broad language should be interpreted to authorize it. The question before the Supreme Court was whether in doing so he “exceeded [his] powers” under §10(a)(4) of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).
The Court’s Decision
The Court ultimately concluded that the arbitrator’s decision survives the limited judicial review §10(a)(4) allows. As further explained by the Court, the FAA precludes a court from determining whether that interpretation is correct. Rather, a court may only decide whether the arbitrator exceeded his powers to interpret the contract.
As Justice Elena Kagan wrote, the FAA “permits courts to vacate an arbitral decision only when the arbitrator strayed from his delegated task of interpreting a contract, not when he performed that task poorly.”
While the parties in Stolt-Nielsen had stipulated that they had never reached an agreement on class arbitration, the parties in Oxford Health Plans expressly asked the arbitrator to consider their contract and determine whether it reflected an agreement to permit class proceedings. Accordingly, the Court held that the arbitrator couldn’t be said to have exceeded his powers.
Thus, the Court did not weigh in on whether the arbitrator made the right call. “All we say is that convincing a court of an arbitrator’s error — even his grave error — is not enough. So long as the arbitrator was ‘arguably construing’ the contract — which this one was — a court may not correct his mistakes under §10(a)(4),” Kagan added.
The Practical Implications
As this case makes clear, businesses looking to prohibit class action claims in arbitration should include express provisions in the contract. This helps ensure that an arbitrator will not interpret silence on this key term as acquiescence. If the parties cannot reach an agreement, it may also be helpful to memorialize this in the agreement in order to bring any resulting litigation under the more favorable purview of Stolt-Nielsen.
If you have any questions about this case or would like to discuss the legal issues involved, please contact me, Christine Vanek, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work.