(2) There was evident partiality by an arbitrator appointed as a neutral or corruption in any of the arbitrators or misconduct prejudicing the rights of any party;

(4) The arbitrators refused to postpone the hearing upon sufficient cause being shown therefor, refused to hear evidence material to the controversy, or otherwise so conducted the hearing, contrary to the provisions of section 25-2606, as to prejudice substantially the rights of a party;

(5) There was no arbitration agreement and the issue was not adversely determined in proceedings under section 25-2603, and the party did not participate in the arbitration hearing without raising the objection; or

(6) An arbitrator was subject to disqualification pursuant to section 25-2604.01 and failed, upon receipt of timely demand, to disqualify himself or herself as required by such section.

The 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.

(b) An application under this section shall be made within ninety days after delivery of a copy of the award to the applicant, except that if predicated upon corruption, fraud, or other undue means, it shall be made within ninety days after such grounds are known or should have been known.

(c) In vacating the award on grounds other than stated in subdivision (a)(5) of this section, the court may order a rehearing before the new arbitrators chosen as provided in the agreement or, in the absence thereof, by the court in accordance with section 25-2604, or if the award is vacated on grounds set forth in subdivisions (a)(3) and (a)(4) of this section, the court may order a rehearing before the arbitrators who made the award or their successors appointed in accordance with section 25-2604. The time within which the agreement requires the award to be made is applicable to the rehearing and commences from the date of the order.

(d) If the application to vacate is denied and no motion to modify or correct the award is pending, the court shall confirm the award.

Annotations

1. Grounds for vacating awards - generally

2. Grounds for vacating awards - partiality

3. Grounds for vacating awards - exceeding power

4. Miscellaneous

1. Grounds for vacating awards - generally

An arbitration award will not be vacated on grounds immaterial to the award. State v. Nebraska Assn. of Pub. Employees, 313 Neb. 259, 984 N.W.2d 103 (2023).

Grounds as to form do not warrant the vacatur of an award. State v. Nebraska Assn. of Pub. Employees, 313 Neb. 259, 984 N.W.2d 103 (2023).

Arbitration awards governed by the Nebraska Uniform Arbitration Act cannot be vacated on the grounds that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law. City of Omaha v. Professional Firefighters Assn., 309 Neb. 918, 963 N.W.2d 1 (2021).

Courts lack the authority to vacate arbitration awards governed by the Nebraska Uniform Arbitration Act on the grounds that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law. City of Omaha v. Professional Firefighters Assn., 309 Neb. 918, 963 N.W.2d 1 (2021).

Serious legal or factual error by the arbitrator does not, standing on its own, provide a basis for vacating an award. City of Omaha v. Professional Firefighters Assn., 309 Neb. 918, 963 N.W.2d 1 (2021).

A court may refuse to enforce an arbitration award that is contrary to a public policy that is explicit, well defined, and dominant. Such a public policy must be ascertained by reference to laws and legal precedents, not from general considerations of supposed public interests; but the arbitration award need not itself violate positive law to be unenforceable as against public policy. State v. Henderson, 277 Neb. 240, 762 N.W.2d 1 (2009).

Pursuant to subsection (a)(6) of this section, the district court lacked authority to vacate the arbitrator's award pursuant to the Uniform Arbitration Act on the basis that it was inequitable. Hartman v. City of Grand Island, 265 Neb. 433, 657 N.W.2d 641 (2003).

The trial court did not err in finding that lack of a formal notice under section 25-2606 was an insufficient ground to vacate an arbitration award. Damrow v. Murdoch, 15 Neb. App. 920, 739 N.W.2d 229 (2007).

2. Grounds for vacating awards - partiality

"Evident partiality" exists under subsection (a)(2) of this section when a reasonable person would have to conclude that an arbitrator was partial to one party to the arbitration. City of Omaha v. Professional Firefighters Assn., 309 Neb. 918, 963 N.W.2d 1 (2021).

The circumstances under which an arbitrator's rulings alone could demonstrate the requisite partiality to vacate an award must be quite rare. City of Omaha v. Professional Firefighters Assn., 309 Neb. 918, 963 N.W.2d 1 (2021).

3. Grounds for vacating awards - exceeding power

In determining whether an arbitrator exceeded his or her powers under subsection (a)(3) of this section, a court's review is limited to whether the awarded relief exceeded the limits of the arbitrator's powers as defined by the contract and does not include whether the arbitrator somehow failed to meet a minimum requirement. State v. Nebraska Assn. of Pub. Employees, 313 Neb. 259, 984 N.W.2d 103 (2023).

It is only when the arbitrator issues an award that simply reflects the arbitrator's personal notions of justice rather than drawing its essence from the contract that a court may find that the arbitrator exceeded his or her powers. City of Omaha v. Professional Firefighters Assn., 309 Neb. 918, 963 N.W.2d 1 (2021).

Subsection (a)(3) of this section is interpreted under the rubric outlined by the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of 9 U.S.C. 10(a)(4) found in Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter, 569 U.S. 564, 133 S. Ct. 2064, 186 L. Ed. 2d 113 (2013). City of Omaha v. Professional Firefighters Assn., 309 Neb. 918, 963 N.W.2d 1 (2021).

The sole question presented when a party claims that an arbitrator exceeded his or her powers is whether the arbitrator (even arguably) interpreted the parties' contract, not whether he or she got its meaning right or wrong. City of Omaha v. Professional Firefighters Assn., 309 Neb. 918, 963 N.W.2d 1 (2021).

To vacate an arbitration award on the grounds that the arbitrator exceeded his or her powers, the party must show more than that the arbitrator committed an error—or even a serious error. City of Omaha v. Professional Firefighters Assn., 309 Neb. 918, 963 N.W.2d 1 (2021).

4. Miscellaneous

Arbitration in Nebraska is governed by the Federal Arbitration Act if it arises from a contract involving interstate commerce; otherwise, it is governed by the Nebraska Uniform Arbitration Act. City of Omaha v. Professional Firefighters Assn., 309 Neb. 918, 963 N.W.2d 1 (2021).