Asselin & Vieceli Partnership, LLC v. Washburn
Case Details
- Judge(s)
- DiPentima; Keller; Sheldon
- Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
- Published
- Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
- appeal
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Outcome
The trial court properly confirmed the arbitration award of $275,607 in favor of the plaintiff for the defendant's negligent construction of a bulkhead. The appellate court affirmed, rejecting the defendant's challenges to the award.
Excerpt
The plaintiff sought to recover damages from the defendant for, inter alia, negligence in connection with the defendant's construction of a bulkhead at a marina operated by M Co. on property owned by the plaintiff. Pursuant to a lease agreement between the plaintiff and M Co., M Co. was obligated to maintain the structural improvements at the marina. When the bulkhead began to deteriorate soon after its construction, the plaintiff commenced this action against the defendant, who then filed a motion to stay the action for arbitration pursuant to an arbitration clause in the construction contract between the defendant and M Co., of which the plaintiff was a third-party beneficiary. The trial court granted the motion and stayed the plaintiff's action pending arbitration. Thereafter, the plaintiff and the defendant entered into an agreement with an arbitrator to arbitrate their dispute. The arbitration agreement provided, inter alia, that the arbitration would proceed on an ad hoc basis, without an administering organization. In her award, the arbitrator found that the bulkhead was a total loss, that the defendant was negligent in constructing it and that his negligence proximately caused its failure. The arbitrator awarded the plaintiff $275,607 in damages. Thereafter, the defendant filed a demand for a trial de novo with the trial court, and the plaintiff filed an objection to that demand and an application to confirm the arbitration award. Following a hearing, the court denied the defendant's demand for a trial de novo and granted the plaintiff's application to confirm the award. On the defendant's appeal to this court, held: 1. This court declined to review the defendant's claims that the trial court should have vacated the arbitration award because the arbitrator failed to comply with the mandatory oath requirement of the applicable statute (§ 52-414 [d]) and the plaintiff failed to comply with the statute (§ 52- 421 [a]) that requires certain documents to be filed
What This Ruling Means
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Similar Rulings
Browse Related
Facing something similar at work?
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.