Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Michael Pullara entered into arbitration to resolve a dispute with Becker Fine Builders Inc., a Houston builder, arising out of an agreement for remodeling Pullara’s apartment. The American Arbitration Association arbitrator, Stephen B. Paxson, awarded Becker a total of $97,442.29 against Pullara. Approximately one year later, however, Pullara discovered something Paxson had allegedly not disclosed before being selected as arbitrator � that, for many years, Paxson had acted as general counsel for the Greater Houston Builders Association. Before being selected as arbitrator, Paxson had disclosed his membership in GHBA, but apparently not his representation of that organization. Finding himself beyond the standard 90-day deadline to seek to vacate the award under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code �171.088, Pullara did not move to set aside the award. Instead, he sued Paxson and the AAA for damages he alleges were caused by Paxson’s failure to disclose his work as general counsel for the GHBA. Pullara contends Paxson’s alleged failure to disclose the attorney-client relationship with GHBA revealed a bias in Becker’s favor, which Pullara believes was a material fact he was entitled to know when he chose the arbitrators to strike from the AAA’s list. Pullara appeals the trial court’s granting summary judgment against him in favor of the defendants. HOLDING:Affirmed. In Blue Cross Blue Shield v. Juneau, 114 S.W.3d 126 (Tex. App. – Austin 2003, no pet.), the court of appeals affirmed a judgment holding that Blue Cross’ claims were barred by the doctrine of arbitral immunity and dismissing the suit for want of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Juneau court affirmed the trial court’s judgment. After reviewing decisions in other jurisdictions upholding the principle of arbitral immunity, this court decides that arbitrators and their sponsoring organizations are immune from civil liability for bias or the failure to disclose a possible source of bias. The court rejects Pullara’s argument asserting that Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code �154.055(a) is evidence the Legislature intended that paid professional arbitrators be subject to civil liability. By its own language, the statute has no effect on the liability or immunity of paid arbitrators. The Texas Supreme Court in Burlington N. R.R. v. TUCO, 960 S.W.2d 629 (Tex. 1997), did not create a cause of action against arbitrators for failing to perform their duty to disclose; it merely examined when particular requirements of the vacatur statute are satisfied. Providing arbitrators with immunity does not relieve them of their duty to disclose and does not conflict with the holding in TUCO, the court states. OPINION:Morriss, C.J.; Morriss, C.J., Ross and Carter, J.J.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.