Sorren v. Kumble, 578 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). · Go Syfert
Search
Sorren v. Kumble, 578 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
13 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Israel v. Costanzo (fladistctapp, 2017-04-12)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Israel v. Costanzo
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2017 · confidence medium
Employee’s April 13, 2015 petition was therefore timely filed to raise the grounds that the reversal of Employee’s conviction on January 16, 2015 constituted “undue means.” Although Employee’s petition was timely to raise the grounds of undue means, he has not made the necessary showing to receive relief. “ ‘[U]ndue means’ refers to such matters as ex parte communications or undisclosed relationships between an arbitrator and one of the contestants.” Sorren v. Kumble, 578 So.2d 836, 836 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State Department of Insurance v. First Floridian Auto & Home Insurance
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2001 · confidence medium
Among district court opinions articulating similar views before section 627.062(6) was enacted are Tallahassee Memorial Regional Medical Center, Inc. v. Kinsey, 655 So.2d 1191, 1198 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Sorren v. Kumble, 578 So.2d 836, 836 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); and Broward County Paraprofessional Association v. McComb, 394 So.2d 471, 472 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) (“An arbitrator’s award is entitled to a high degree of conclusiveness....”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. FIRST FLORIDIAN AUTO INS.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2001 · confidence medium
Among district court opinions articulating similar views before section 627.062(6) was enacted are Tallahassee Memorial Regional Medical Center, Inc. v. Kinsey, 655 So.2d 1191, 1198 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Sorren v. Kumble, 578 So.2d 836, 836 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); and Broward County Paraprofessional Association v. McComb, 394 So.2d 471, 472 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) ("An arbitrator's award is entitled to a high degree of conclusiveness....").
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Wojdak v. Greater Philadelphia Cablevision, Inc.
Pa. · 1998 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also, Sorren v. Kumble, 578 So.2d 836 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1991) (per curiam opinion holding that undue means refers to such matters as ex parte communications between an arbitrator and one of the parties).
Paul K. SORREN, Appellant,
v.
Richard A. KUMBLE and Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc., Appellees.
90-858.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Apr 30, 1991.
578 So. 2d 836
Hubbart, Baskin and Cope.
Cited by 10 opinions  |  Published

Krongold, Bass & Todd and Paul H. Bass, Coral Gables, for appellant.

Fowler, White, Burnett, Hurley, Banick & Strickroot and Brian D. Elias, Miami, for appellees.

Before HUBBART, BASKIN and COPE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Paul Sorren appeals a final judgment confirming an arbitration award. He contends that the arbitration panel erroneously admitted a piece of evidence, over objection, which he says was irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial to his position. He argues that the award should have been set aside on the theory that "the award was procured by ... undue means." 9 U.S.C. § 10; see also § 682.13(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (1989).

It is well settled that evidentiary rulings in arbitration proceedings are within the province of the arbitration panel. "The standard of judicial review of an arbitration panel's decision is extremely limited. The panel is the sole and final judge of the evidence and the weight to be given it." Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc. v. Shuman, 483 So.2d 888, 889 (Fla.3d DCA 1986). The "undue means" provision of the federal and state arbitration acts should be read in pari materia with the statutory phrase: an award may be set aside "[w]here the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means." 9 U.S.C. § 10 (a). Without attempting a comprehensive definition, we think "undue means" refers to such matters as ex parte communications or undisclosed relationships between an arbitrator and one of the contestants. See generally Overseas Private Inv. Corp. v. Anaconda Co., 418 F. Supp. 107 (D.D.C. 1976). It does not cover a circumstance where[*837] evidence is offered to the arbitration panel during its proceedings. Drayer v. Krasner, 572 F.2d 348, 352 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 436 U.S. 948, 98 S.Ct. 2855, 56 L.Ed.2d 791 (1978).

Affirmed.