Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-5-313 (2026)

Disclosure by arbitrator

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaTenn. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Before accepting appointment, an individual who is requested to serve as an arbitrator, after making a reasonable inquiry, shall disclose to all parties to the agreement to arbitrate and arbitration proceeding and to other arbitrators known facts that a reasonable person would consider likely to affect the impartiality of the arbitrator in the arbitration proceeding, including:
- (1) A financial or personal interest in the outcome of the arbitration proceeding; and
- (2) An existing or past relationship with the parties to the agreement to arbitrate or the arbitration proceeding, the parties' counsel or representatives, a witness, or other arbitrators.

(b) An arbitrator has a continuing obligation to disclose to all parties to the agreement to arbitrate and arbitration proceeding and to other arbitrators facts that the arbitrator learns after accepting appointment that a reasonable person would consider likely to affect the impartiality of the arbitrator.

(c) If an arbitrator discloses a fact required by subsection (a) or (b) to be disclosed and a party timely objects to the appointment or continued service of the arbitrator based upon the fact disclosed, then the objection may be a ground under § 29-5-324(a)(2) for vacating an award made by the arbitrator.

(d) If the arbitrator did not disclose a fact as required by subsection (a) or (b), upon timely objection by a party, then the court under § 29-5-324(a)(2) may vacate an award.

(e) An arbitrator appointed as a neutral arbitrator who does not disclose a known, direct, and material interest in the outcome of the arbitration proceeding, or a known, existing, and substantial relationship with a party, is presumed to act with evident partiality under § 29-5-324(a)(2).

(f) If the parties to an arbitration proceeding agree to the procedures of an arbitration organization or other procedures for challenges to arbitrators before an award is made, then substantial compliance with those procedures is a condition precedent to a motion to vacate an award on that ground under § 29-5-324(a)(2).

Added by 2023 Tenn. Acts, ch. 319, s 1, eff. 7/1/2023.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 50 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1984–2026 · leading case: Morgan Keegan & Co., Inc. v. William Hamilton Smythe, III, 401 S.W.3d 595 (Tenn. 2013).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Morgan Keegan & Co., Inc. v. William Hamilton Smythe, III, 401 S.W.3d 595 (Tenn. 2013). · cites it 16× “Thus, when the party dissatisfied with the arbitration award acts first by petitioning to vacate the award in accordance with Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-5-313, we do not construe the Tennessee Uniform Arbitration Act to require the party who prevailed in the arbitration to file a…”

Arnold v. Morgan Keegan & Co., Inc., 914 S.W.2d 445 (Tenn. 1996). · cites it 20× “” Pursuant to Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-5-313, Arnold moved the Chancery Court of Knox County to vacate the panel’s decision.”

Pugh's Lawn Landscape Co. v. Jaycon Dev. Corp., 320 S.W.3d 252 (Tenn. 2010). · cites it 14× “Pursuant to section 29-5-312, “the court shall confirm an award, unless, within the time limits hereinafter imposed, grounds are urged for vacating or modifying or correcting the award, in which case the court shall proceed as provided in §§ 29-5-313 and 29-5-314.” (Emphasis…”

D & E Constr. Co. v. Robert J. Denley Co., 38 S.W.3d 513 (Tenn. 2001). · cites it 8× “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-5-313 (a)(3). In the alternative, a trial court can modify or correct the award when “[t]he arbitrators have awarded upon a matter not submitted to them and the award may be corrected without affecting the merits of the decision upon the issues submitted.”

Team Design v. Gottlieb, 104 S.W.3d 512 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 4× “”); Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-5-313 ; see also, Grobet File Co.”

Benton v. Vanderbilt Univ., 137 S.W.3d 614 (Tenn. 2004). · cites it 4× “See Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 29-5-313, 29-5-319 (2000).”

Tuetken v. Tuetken, 320 S.W.3d 262 (Tenn. 2010). · cites it 3× “First, "the court shall confirm an award, unless, within the time limits hereinafter imposed, grounds are urged for vacating or modifying or correcting the award, in which case the court shall proceed as provided in §§ 29-5-313 and 29-5-314." Tenn. Code Ann.”

Lawrence Cnty. Educ. Ass'n v. Lawrence Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 244 S.W.3d 302 (Tenn. 2007). · cites it 2× “It is important to note that while public policy considerations generally favor the arbitration of collective bargaining disputes, an arbitrator’s decision cannot act in contravention of statutes.”

Rafia N. Khan, Individually, & In Her Capacity As Tr. Of The Rafia N. Khan Irrevocable Trust v. Regions Bank, 461 S.W.3d 505 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 8× “grounds are urged for vacating or modifying or correcting the award, in which case1 the court shall proceed as provided in §§ 29-5-313 and 29-5-314.” (Emphasis added).”

Davis v. Reliance Elec. Indus. Co., 104 S.W.3d 57 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-5-313(a). 1 The statute goes on to state that “[t]he fact that the relief was such that it could not or would not be granted by a court of law or equity is not ground for vacating or refusing to confirm the award.”

Williams Holding Co. v. Willis, 166 S.W.3d 707 (Tenn. 2005). · cites it 2× “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-5-313 (2000) (grounds for vacating arbitration award); Tenn.”

Lasco Inc. v. Inman Constr. Corp., 467 S.W.3d 467 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “” Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-5-313(a)(3). In the alternative, a trial court can modify or correct the award when “[t]he arbitrators have awarded upon a matter not submitted to them and the award may be corrected without affecting the merits of the decision upon the issues submitted.”

Show all 50 citing cases →

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-5-313(3) — 1 case

Chattanooga Area Reg'l Transp. Auth. v. Local 1212 Amalgamated Transit Union, 206 S.W.3d 448 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006).

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-5-313(5) — 1 case

Arnold v. Morgan Keegan & Co., Inc., 914 S.W.2d 445 (Tenn. 1996). “” Pursuant to Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-5-313, Arnold moved the Chancery Court of Knox County to vacate the panel’s decision.”

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-5-313(a) — 13 cases

Morgan Keegan & Co., Inc. v. William Hamilton Smythe, III, 401 S.W.3d 595 (Tenn. 2013). “Thus, when the party dissatisfied with the arbitration award acts first by petitioning to vacate the award in accordance with Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-5-313, we do not construe the Tennessee Uniform Arbitration Act to require the party who prevailed in the arbitration to file a…”

Arnold v. Morgan Keegan & Co., Inc., 914 S.W.2d 445 (Tenn. 1996). “” Pursuant to Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-5-313, Arnold moved the Chancery Court of Knox County to vacate the panel’s decision.”

Pugh's Lawn Landscape Co. v. Jaycon Dev. Corp., 320 S.W.3d 252 (Tenn. 2010). “Pursuant to section 29-5-312, “the court shall confirm an award, unless, within the time limits hereinafter imposed, grounds are urged for vacating or modifying or correcting the award, in which case the court shall proceed as provided in §§ 29-5-313 and 29-5-314.” (Emphasis…”

Tuetken v. Tuetken, 320 S.W.3d 262 (Tenn. 2010). “First, "the court shall confirm an award, unless, within the time limits hereinafter imposed, grounds are urged for vacating or modifying or correcting the award, in which case the court shall proceed as provided in §§ 29-5-313 and 29-5-314." Tenn. Code Ann.”

Davis v. Reliance Elec. Indus. Co., 104 S.W.3d 57 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-5-313(a). 1 The statute goes on to state that “[t]he fact that the relief was such that it could not or would not be granted by a court of law or equity is not ground for vacating or refusing to confirm the award.”

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-5-313(a)(1) — 1 case

Derwood Stewart v. Armtech Ins. Serv., Inc. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018).

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-5-313(a)(1)(B) — 3 cases

Maury Bronstein, IRA v. Morgan Keegan & Co., Inc. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2014).

Morgan Keegan & Co., Inc. v. Michael Starnes (Tenn. Ct. App. 2014).

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-5-313(a)(1)(B)(2012) — 1 case

Morgan Keegan & Co., Inc. v. Michael Starnes (Tenn. Ct. App. 2014).

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-5-313(a)(1)(C) — 1 case

Morgan Keegan & Co., Inc. v. Michael Starnes (Tenn. Ct. App. 2014).

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-5-313(a)(3) — 11 cases

Arnold v. Morgan Keegan & Co., Inc., 914 S.W.2d 445 (Tenn. 1996). “” Pursuant to Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-5-313, Arnold moved the Chancery Court of Knox County to vacate the panel’s decision.”

D & E Constr. Co. v. Robert J. Denley Co., 38 S.W.3d 513 (Tenn. 2001). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-5-313 (a)(3). In the alternative, a trial court can modify or correct the award when “[t]he arbitrators have awarded upon a matter not submitted to them and the award may be corrected without affecting the merits of the decision upon the issues submitted.”

Rafia N. Khan, Individually, & In Her Capacity As Tr. Of The Rafia N. Khan Irrevocable Trust v. Regions Bank, 461 S.W.3d 505 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2014). “grounds are urged for vacating or modifying or correcting the award, in which case1 the court shall proceed as provided in §§ 29-5-313 and 29-5-314.” (Emphasis added).”

Lasco Inc. v. Inman Constr. Corp., 467 S.W.3d 467 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015). “” Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-5-313(a)(3). In the alternative, a trial court can modify or correct the award when “[t]he arbitrators have awarded upon a matter not submitted to them and the award may be corrected without affecting the merits of the decision upon the issues submitted.”

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-5-313(a)(3)(C) — 1 case

Derwood Stewart v. Armtech Ins. Serv., Inc. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018).

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-5-313(a)(5) — 4 cases

Victor J. Thomas, M.D. v. Pediatrix Med. Grp. of Tennessee, P.C. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010).

D&E Constr., Inc. v. Robert Denley Co., Inc. (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999).

Marcia McAlexander v. Albert McAlexander (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003).

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-5-313(a)(l) — 1 case

Indocomex Fibres PTE., Ltd. v. Cotton Co. Int'l Inc., 916 F. Supp. 721 (W.D. Tenn. 1996).

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-5-313(b) — 1 case

Haynes Ex Rel. Burton v. O'Connell, 599 F. Supp. 59 (E.D. Tenn. 1984).

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-5-313(c) — 1 case

William Boyle v. Virginia Thomas (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.