Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter

Arbitration: did arbitrator ex­ceed his powers under §10(a)(4) of the Federal Arbitration Act? A party seeking relief under §10(a)(4) bears a heavy burden. “It is not enough . . . to show that the arbitrator committed an error—or even a serious error.” Stolt-Nielsen, 559 U. S., at 671. Because the parties “bargained for the arbitrator’s construction of their agree­ment,” an arbitral decision “even arguably construing or applying the contract” must stand, regardless of a court’s view of its (de)merits. Eastern Associated Coal Corp. v. Mine Workers, 531 U. S. 57, 62. Thus, the sole question on judicial review is whether the arbitrator interpreted the parties’ contract, not whether he construed it correct­ly. Here, the arbitrator twice did what the parties asked: He consid­ered their contract and decided whether it reflected an agreement to permit class proceedings. That suffices to show that he did not ex­ceed his powers under §10(a)(4). Stolt-Neilsen does not support Oxford’s contrary view. There, the parties stipulated that they had not reached an agreement on class arbitration, so the arbitrators did not construe the contract, and did not identify any agreement authorizing class proceedings. This Court thus found not that they had misinterpreted the contract but that they had abandoned their interpretive role. Here, in stark con­trast, the arbitrator did construe the contract, and did find an agreement to permit class arbitration. So to overturn his decision, this Court would have to find that he misapprehended the parties’ in­tent. But §10(a)(4) bars that course: It 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. (U.S.S.Ct., 10.06.13, Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter, J. Kagan, unanimous).

Arbitrage : excès de pouvoir de l'arbitre au sens du paragraphe 10(a)(4) de la loi fédérale sur l'arbitrage : le pouvoir d'examen de la Cour s'agissant du maintien ou de l'annulation de la décision de l'arbitre est très étroit. En effet, la partie qui se plaint devant le Tribunal ordinaire de la décision de l'arbitre ne saurait se limiter à soutenir que l'arbitre a commis une erreur d'interprétation. Dès lors, même si l'arbitre s'est trompé, son erreur subsistera, les parties ayant opté pour l'arbitrage et non pour une résolution judiciaire de leur litige. Par contre, si l'arbitre a failli à sa mission d'interpréter la volonté des parties, le Tribunal peut annuler sa décision.