Case from May 2014 to July 2014
The named arbitral forum is not a material term to agreements in which the parties agree to arbitrate “in accordance with” the named forum’s rules, absent other evidence to the contrary. However, when parties elect for a proceeding “administered by” a named forum, that forum should be viewed as integral to the arbitration agreement, absent evidence to the contrary.
Dean v. Heritage Healthcare of Ridgeway, Op. No. 27401 (S.C. Sup. Ct. filed June 18, 2014) (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 24 at 34).
Case from September 2013 to November 2013
An unsuccessful party in an arbitration proceeding may not prevent the confirmation of an award by paying the award prior to the confirmation proceeding.
Henderson v. Summerville Ford-Mercury Inc., Op. No. 27313 (S.C. Sup. Ct. filed September 11, 2013) (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 40 at 17).
Case from June 2013 to September 2013
To determine if a claimant has demonstrated “evident partiality” pursuant to S.C. Code Section 15-48-130(a)(2) of the S.C. Uniform Arbitration Act, a court should examine the following four factors: the extent and character of the personal interest, pecuniary or otherwise, of the arbitrator in the proceeding; the directness of the relationship between the arbitrator and the party he is alleged to favor; the connection of that relationship to the arbitration; and the proximity in time between the relationship and the arbitration proceeding.
Crouch Construction Co., Inc. v. Causey, Op. No. 27300 (S.C. Sup. Ct. filed August 14, 2013) (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 36 at 85).