MICHAEL DEROSE v. JASON ROBERT'S, INC., ET AL., 191 Conn. App. 781

Summary

HOLDINGS: [1]-Defendants' claim that they were denied an evidentiary hearing before the trial court ruled on their motion to vacate an arbitration award was simply untenable; [2]-Neither of the purported "public policies" advanced by defendants -- the policy favoring arbitration as an efficient alternative to litigation and the equitable doctrine of laches -- rose to the type of explicit, well-defined, and dominant public policy that would render the arbitrator's award unenforceable under the narrow public policy exception; [3]-Defendants' mere disagreement with the arbitrator's interpretation and/or application of established legal principles was a far cry from the egregious or patently irrational misperformance of duty that had to be shown in order to prove a manifest disregard of the law under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-418(a)(4).