Policy Admin. Solutions, Inc. v. QBE Holdings, Inc.

Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Policy Admin. Solutions, Inc. v. QBE Holdings, Inc.

Citation: 2018 NY Slip Op 2878Docket: 652273/14 6346N

Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; April 26, 2018; New York; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Policy Administration Solutions, Inc. initiated a legal action against QBE Holdings, Inc. regarding an arbitration award. The Appellate Division, First Department, upheld lower court decisions concerning the arbitration. The Supreme Court of New York County, under Justice Charles E. Ramos, had previously denied QBE's motion to confirm the arbitration award and granted Policy Administration's motion to vacate the award, remanding the case for further proceedings.

Key points include:

1. **Denial of Motion to Confirm**: The court denied QBE's motion to confirm the arbitration award.
2. **Vacating the Award**: The court affirmed the decision to vacate the arbitration award due to misconduct, specifically the failure of QBE to disclose that a key witness had agreed to plead guilty to criminal charges shortly before testifying.
3. **Remand to AAA**: The order remanded the matter to the American Arbitration Association (AAA) to determine who would preside over the proceedings on remand, rather than returning it to the original arbitrator, Peter Brown.
4. **Legal Justification**: The misconduct by QBE in failing to disclose pertinent information about the witness was sufficient to vacate the award under CPLR 7511(b)(1)(i), indicating that further arbitration proceedings are warranted.
5. **Affirmation of Lower Court's Discretion**: The appellate court found that the Supreme Court acted within its discretion in remitting the case to the AAA.

The decision ultimately emphasizes the importance of transparency and proper conduct in arbitration proceedings. The orders were affirmed without costs.