## Facts

- Harbert, a general contractor for a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers project at Fort Bragg, subcontracted with Hercules to fabricate and erect structural steel.
- The subcontract required Hercules to meet delivery and completion dates tied to a “Progress Schedule” or “Project Schedule,” but those scheduling terms were not defined.
- Harbert issued two different schedules: an earlier “2000 schedule” and a later “3000 schedule.”
- Hercules missed dates in the 2000 schedule but met dates in the 3000 schedule.
- Harbert withheld payment and asserted delay damages exceeding the unpaid subcontract balance.
- The subcontract required binding AAA arbitration; the arbitrator awarded Hercules the unpaid balance and rejected Harbert’s delay-damages/offset claims.
- Harbert sought vacatur in federal court, contending the arbitrator acted in “manifest disregard of the law”; the district court denied vacatur and confirmed the award.

## Issues

1. Whether the arbitration award should be vacated under the Federal Arbitration Act based on “manifest disregard of the law” or any statutory vacatur ground in 9 U.S.C. § 10.
2. Whether baseless challenges to arbitration awards that function as an attempted relitigation can justify sanctions, and whether sanctions were warranted on this appeal.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the judgment confirming the arbitration award for Hercules.
- Harbert failed to establish any FAA basis for vacatur, including any showing that the arbitrator exceeded his powers or disregarded clearly governing law.
- The court declined to impose sanctions in this case but issued a pointed warning that future frivolous challenges to arbitration awards may result in sanctions.

## Legal Principles

- Judicial review of arbitration awards under the FAA is “among the narrowest known to the law,” limited to the grounds stated in 9 U.S.C. § 10 (e.g., corruption, fraud, evident partiality, misconduct, or arbitrators exceeding their powers).
- Courts do not conduct appellate-style review of an arbitrator’s factfinding or contract interpretation; even serious legal or factual error is generally insufficient to vacate an award absent a statutory ground.
- “Manifest disregard of the law,” to the extent recognized, is not satisfied by disagreement with the arbitrator’s interpretation or by arguments that the arbitrator reached the wrong result.
- When parties agree to binding arbitration, the arbitrator has authority to resolve ambiguities and interpret contract terms within the scope of the submission.
- Courts may deter frivolous post-award litigation through sanctions mechanisms such as Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927 when proceedings are unreasonably and vexatiously multiplied.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit upheld confirmation of the arbitration award because Harbert’s attack amounted to an effort to relitigate the merits rather than identify a statutory vacatur ground, and it cautioned that meritless appeals from arbitral awards risk sanctions to protect arbitration’s role as a final, efficient alternative to litigation.


B.L. Harbert Int’l, LLC v. Hercules Steel Co., 441 F.3d 905 (11th Cir. 2006)