Connection lost
Server error
Commonwealth Coatings Corp. v. Continental Casualty Co. Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: An arbitrator’s failure to disclose a significant business relationship with one of the parties creates an appearance of bias, requiring the arbitration award to be vacated under the Federal Arbitration Act.
Legal Significance: This case establishes a duty for arbitrators to disclose any dealings that might create an impression of possible bias, defining the failure to do so as “evident partiality” under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).
Commonwealth Coatings Corp. v. Continental Casualty Co. Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Petitioner Commonwealth Coatings Corp., a subcontractor, had an arbitration agreement with a prime contractor. When a dispute arose, each party appointed an arbitrator, and those two selected a third, supposedly neutral arbitrator. This neutral arbitrator was an engineering consultant who had a significant, ongoing business relationship with the prime contractor, earning approximately $12,000 in fees over several years. This relationship included providing services on the very projects central to the arbitration dispute. The arbitrator did not disclose this relationship to Commonwealth Coatings, which remained unaware of it until after the three-arbitrator panel issued a unanimous award against it. Commonwealth Coatings sought to vacate the award, arguing the undisclosed relationship demonstrated bias. The district court and court of appeals refused to vacate the award, finding no evidence of actual fraud or bias.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does an arbitrator’s failure to disclose a significant prior business relationship with one of the parties constitute “evident partiality” sufficient to vacate an arbitral award under § 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act?
Yes. The arbitrator’s failure to disclose his business relationship with the prime Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut eni
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does an arbitrator’s failure to disclose a significant prior business relationship with one of the parties constitute “evident partiality” sufficient to vacate an arbitral award under § 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act?
Conclusion
This landmark decision imposes a stringent disclosure duty on arbitrators under the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis no
Legal Rule
Under § 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act, an arbitration award may Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ulla
Legal Analysis
The majority opinion, authored by Justice Black, held that the Federal Arbitration Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehende
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- An arbitration award is invalid for “evident partiality” if a neutral