Pacelli v. Vane Line Bunkering, Inc.

Background

Daniel Pacelli worked as a tankerman for Vane Line Bunkering, Inc., doing business as Vane Brothers. In March 2017, while working on a barge in New York Harbor during severe winter weather, Pacelli slipped on an icy lower deck while spreading salt. He suffered injuries to his shoulders, biceps, and neck.

Pacelli brought a JAMS arbitration proceeding against Vane Brothers. The arbitrator found that Pacelli’s damages totaled $986,750. The arbitrator also found negligence by Vane Brothers’ personnel, including failures to maintain handrails and to ensure that the barge was safe. But the arbitrator concluded that Pacelli was 70% negligent because he went onto the lower deck without first seeking assistance, and therefore assigned Vane Brothers responsibility for 30% of the damages, or $296,025.

Pacelli’s request to vacate

Pacelli petitioned under the Federal Arbitration Act to vacate, or set aside, the award. He argued that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law by reducing his award based on contributory negligence. He also argued that the arbitrator was evidently partial because he owned part of JAMS and JAMS had other matters involving Vane Brothers, its counsel, and the counsel’s law firm. In addition, Pacelli argued that the arbitrator’s delays violated the Act and that the failure to award prejudgment interest justified vacatur.

The court denied each argument. It held that Pacelli had identified no governing legal rule that the arbitrator knowingly refused to apply. His arguments instead challenged how the arbitrator weighed the evidence and assigned responsibility, which was not a basis for vacating the award. The court explained that it could not conduct a new review of the arbitration or set aside the award merely because it might disagree with the arbitrator’s legal or factual conclusions.

The court also held that Pacelli waived his partiality objection because he knew of the relevant disclosures before the arbitrator issued the award but did not raise the objection during the arbitration. The court added that the objection would fail even without waiver because Pacelli did not show a material conflict or a direct connection between the arbitrator’s interests and the outcome. The court further found no authority supporting vacatur based on the arbitrator’s extensions of the decision deadline, particularly because Pacelli consented to those extensions. Finally, the court declined to vacate the award based on the denial of prejudgment interest.

Confirmation of the award

Because the court did not vacate the award, it considered Pacelli’s alternative request to confirm it. Vane Brothers did not oppose confirmation. Treating the request as an unopposed motion for summary judgment, the court found sufficient evidence supporting the award and no basis to set it aside. The court therefore granted Pacelli’s petition to confirm the arbitration award.

Disposition

Judge John P. Cronan denied Pacelli’s petition to vacate the arbitration award and granted his petition to confirm the arbitration award. The court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate all pending motions and close the case.