Court decisions on petitions to confirm or vacate arbitration awards often go into some detail about the dispute. In a recent case, the court chose to use the arbitrator’s very comprehensive reasoned award to address both confirmation and vacatur in extreme detail.

Read more: Federal Court Confirms Arbitration Award for Cedent and Denies Reinsurers’ Petition to Vacate Using Details of the Arbitrator’s Reasoned Award

In Hamilton Managing Agency Ltd. v. ICI Mutual Insurance Co., RRG, No. 2:25-mc-00079-cr, D. VT (Apr. 14, 2026), the cedent paid a claim to an insured under a D&O policy that was reinsured in part. The reinsurers disputed liability under the reinsurance contract and the parties arbitrated before a sole arbitrator. The arbitrator issued interim and final awards in favor of the cedent and apparently issued a detailed reasoned award. The reinsurers petitioned to vacate the award on multiple grounds. The cedent cross-petitioned to confirm the award.

In a lengthy and detailed wide-ranging opinion the court denied the petition to vacate and confirmed the arbitration award. What is different about this case is that the court chose to expound upon the arbitrator’s reasoned award in great detail to address the various grounds for vacatur and to support confirmation.

The issues arbitrated focused on whether “follow-the-fortunes” should be imputed into the reinsurance contract (or whether there even was a “follow-the-fortunes” clause) and whether the prior acts exclusion in the underlying policy precluded coverage of the subject matter of the dispute (reinstatement of financial filings with the SEC).

On the petition to vacate, among other things, the issue of arbitrator disclosure was raised in the context of seeking to vacate because of evident partiality. The ARIAS·U.S. Code of Conduct and its application to the allegations of non-disclosure were part of the court’s decision. The non-disclosure argument focused on the arbitrator’s prior expert testimony concerning whether industry custom and practice requires that “follow-the-fortunes” be imputed into all reinsurance contracts. The issue was raised with the arbitrator, who explained his position, which the court pointed out the reinsurers accepted. Ultimately, the court found that the reinsurers waived the argument. Nevertheless, the court looked at the substance of the argument and found that the arbitrator’s prior testimony on the imputation issue did not provide a basis for finding evident partiality.

The reinsurers also sought to vacate the award based on the arbitrator exceeding his authority and manifest disregard of the law. The court found that the arbitrator’s award was well within the scope of the arbitration clause, which included honorable engagement language. The court also found that the arbitrator provided a colorable justification for the award and that no egregious impropriety was apparent. Notably, the court stated that “[a]n arbitrator cannot manifestly disregard the law when he or she is empowered by the governing agreement to disregard it and follow industry custom and practice instead.” (citation omitted).

Arbitration awards are very hard to vacate. Where you have a well-reasoned award, the task is even harder.