DocketNumber: No. CV94 0138179 S
Citation Numbers: 1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 11326, 12 Conn. L. Rptr. 669
Judges: MOTTOLESE, J.
Filed Date: 11/8/1994
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
On October 4, 1994, the court ordered the parties to submit supplemental memoranda of law addressing five questions. The first was "What effect, if any, does the arbitrator's award (ruling) of November 12, 1992 have upon the issues to be decided in this case?" On that date, the arbitrator ruled that the contract between the parties was valid and enforceable. The arbitrator made this ruling after a preliminary hearing at which A.I.G. claimed the contract was void for illegality and for violation of public policy because it required T.C.I. to practice architecture without a license. A.I.G.'s supplemental memorandum prepared in response to the October 4, 1994 order focused extensively on the effect of the November 12 ruling. In light of this, the court must determine whether as a threshold matter it must decide the validity of the parties' contract in addition to undertaking public policy review of the arbitrator's award.
Prior to its supplemental memorandum, A.I.G.'s principal argument had been that the arbitrator's award is illegal and against public policy because it necessitates the payment of fees to a non architect for the performance of architectural services. A.I.G. has also argued, pursuant to C.G.S. §
C.G.S. §
An agreement in any written contract . . . to settle by arbitration any controversy thereafter arising out of such contract . . . shall be valid, irrevocable and enforceable, except when there exists sufficient cause at law or in equity for the avoidance of written contracts generally.
Further, since the parties' agreement to arbitrate is the sole source of the arbitrator's authority, the validity of that agreement is an issue of subject matter, jurisdiction.International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Shapiro, supra; Bennettv. Meader,
A.I.G. has challenged the subject matter jurisdiction of the arbitrator under §
In letters dated November 20, 1992 and December 10, 1992, A.I.G. maintained that the arbitrator did not have jurisdiction over the claim. During the formal arbitration hearings, A.I.G. again contended that the parties' agreement is void and, "therefore, no enforceable written agreement to arbitrate exists end as a result . . . the American Arbitration Association lacks CT Page 11329 jurisdiction to adjudicate this matter."
Most importantly, in the present action, A.I.G. has specifically alleged that the "arbitration award is a nullity because the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter because the submission to arbitrate is void and illegal and properly avoided by application of Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec.
Since A.I.G. is challenge the agreement to arbitrate pursuant to §
Since, under §
It is not, however, appropriate for this particular court to decide this question at this juncture. The court takes judicial notice of a civil action pending in the Judicial District of Fairfield entitled A.I.G. Financial Products Corp. v, [v.] TotalConcept/New York, Inc., CV92 0300111 S, in which A.I.G. is seeking a declaratory judgment that its contract with T.C.I. is void and unenforceable for the same reasons alleged in the CT Page 11330 present action. The pleadings are closed in that action and it was claimed to the courtside trial list on December 1, 1993.
Since that action remains pending, this court should stay the present proceedings pending its resolution. If the court declares the agreement to be illegal and unenforceable then this court will be deprived of subject matter jurisdiction. If the court rules to the contrary, then this court may then proceed to confirm or vacate the award. Accordingly, the court declines to either confirm or vacate the award but orders a stay of this action pending resolution of the declaratory judgment action.
MOTTOLESE, J.
International Brotherhood of Teamsters of America v. Shapiro , 138 Conn. 57 ( 1951 )
Textile Workers Union v. Uncas Printing & Finishing Co. , 20 Conn. Super. Ct. 91 ( 1956 )
Kilby v. St. Paul Insurance , 29 Conn. Super. Ct. 22 ( 1970 )
Board of Trustees v. Federation of Technical College ... , 179 Conn. 184 ( 1979 )