Managed Care Insurance Consultants, Inc. v. United Healthcare Insurance Company, et al.

This case presents the important but unanswered federal question of whether, under Commonwealth Coatings Corp. v. Continental Cas. Co., 393 U.S. 145 (1968), and the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §10(a)(2), a finding of “evident partiality” is precluded by an arbitrator’s lack of knowledge of the information upon which an actual conflict exists?

Does the state court decision below, which primarily relies on Gianelli Money Purchase Plan & Trust v. Adm Investor Services, Inc., 146 F.3d 1309 (11th Cir. 1998), requiring proof of the arbitrator’s actual knowledge of an actual conflict, conflict with the Ninth, Second and Fourth circuit decisions in New Regency Prod., Inc. v. Nippon Herald Films, Inc., 501 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2007), Schmitz v. Zilveti, 20 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 1994), Applied Indus. Materials Corp. v. Ovalar Makine Ticaret Ve Sanayi, A.S., 492 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2007), ANR Coal Co. v. Cogentrix of N.C., Inc., 173 F.3d 493 (4th Cir. 1999) which reject the Gianelli proposition that “evident partiality” is precluded by an arbitrator’s lack of knowledge of the information upon which an actual conflict exists?