Is there a "be careful what you wish for" tone in the Fifth District's recent decision where, in declining to accept an appeal out of arbitration, the Panel notes that "arbitration, after all, is a form of alternative dispute resolution..." (their emphasis)

That said, there is some legal truth to the statement that arbitration is an alternative dispute forum where there are only five "narrow" grounds for appeal which are rarely invoked with success. That means that an arbitrator can make an error of law, decline to correct it, and there is nothing the losing party can do about it.

The case which brings up this dirty little secret of arbitration nuance is Commercial Interiors Corporation of Boca Raton v. Pinkerton & Laws, Inc. and Hartford Fire, etc. (Monaco, Griffin and Sawaya).

Back in 2006, we mentioned that the Third and Fifth DCAs acknowledge five -- and only five -- grounds to vacate an arbitrator's order, see here and here. Not too long after that, we stumbled across the sternly worded "poor loser" case from the Eleventh Circuit which indicated there was only four grounds to vacate an arbitration award, at least in the 11th Circuit's eyes. Even in late 2007, we found that vacating awards was not an easy task -- at the same time, the Third DCA confirmed that an arbitrator need not be apply the right law in Regalado and CareMed v. Cabezas.

Now in late 2009, the Fifth DCA heard a dispute over a construction subcontract where both parties agreed the subject contract included an arbitration clause however the property owner claimed it was relieved from paying the bill because the opposing party did not have a contractor's license, thus leading the contract to be void under Florida Statutes 489.128. This case was noted to be similar to the prior case of Charles Boyd Construction v. Vacation Beach.

Under Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, the issue of the illegality of the contract is for the arbitrator to decide. Thereafter, any arbitrator's award can be appealed under the Florida Arbitration Code, Florida Statute 682.13, for fraud, partiality, exceeding powers, refusal to postpone hearing, or no arbitration agreement.

The Fifth DCA found no such grounds existed. Moreover, relying upon a 1989 Florida Supreme Court case, the Panel confirmed that "the trial court simply disagreed with the arbitrator's application of the law in this case" but "that, however, is not a sufficient basis to set aside this arbitration proceeding." Phrased in more tart language, the state supreme court had previously noted, "an award of arbitration may not be reversed on the grounds that the arbitrator made an error of law."