## Facts

- A reinsurer group (Meadowbrook) and National Union entered a reinsurance treaty requiring disputes to be decided by a tripartite arbitration panel (two party-appointed arbitrators plus a neutral umpire).
- The treaty prescribed a “slate and draw” method to select an umpire if party arbitrators could not agree; the parties also used a disclosure questionnaire for umpire candidates.
- Meadowbrook initiated arbitration in 2011 alleging overbilling; each side appointed an arbitrator, and the umpire was selected by lot after the party arbitrators deadlocked.
- The selected umpire disclosed a personal friendship with National Union’s party arbitrator; Meadowbrook did not strike the umpire from the selection slate.
- After hearings, the panel issued a unanimous “Final Interim Award” deciding liability in National Union’s favor and directing Meadowbrook to pay over $1.9 million, while reserving jurisdiction over further damages submissions.
- Meadowbrook later alleged that the umpire and National Union’s arbitrator were proceeding without Meadowbrook’s arbitrator in handling damages-related matters, effectively abandoning the treaty’s tripartite process.

## Issues

1. Whether, under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), a federal court may enjoin or stay an ongoing arbitration based on alleged departures from the agreed arbitral procedure before a final arbitral award issues.
2. Whether the panel’s “Final Interim Award,” which resolved liability but reserved damages issues, constituted a final award subject to judicial review under the FAA.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court and vacated the injunction that halted the arbitration.
- The court held the district court lacked authority under the FAA to stop the arbitration because no final arbitral award had issued.
- The court concluded the “Final Interim Award” was not final because it left substantive matters (including damages) for the panel to decide.
- The court rejected Meadowbrook’s attempt to frame mid-arbitration objections as a breach-of-contract action to obtain judicial intervention outside the FAA’s final-award framework.

## Legal Principles

- Judicial review of arbitration under the FAA is limited and generally available only after a final award, through confirmation, vacatur, or modification proceedings.
- An arbitral award is “final” for FAA purposes when it finally and conclusively disposes of a separate and independent claim, leaving nothing further for the arbitrators to do on that claim.
- A district court may not enjoin or stay an arbitration in progress based on complaints about arbitral conduct or procedure; such intervention would circumvent and effectively alter the FAA’s review scheme.
- Allegations that arbitrators exceeded their powers or failed to follow contractually required procedures ordinarily must be raised in a post-award challenge under the FAA, not through midstream judicial control.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit held that the FAA does not permit courts to halt an ongoing arbitration based on asserted procedural defects when the arbitrators have not issued a final award, and it treated an interim liability decision reserving damages as nonfinal and not yet reviewable.


Savers Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., 748 F.3d 708 (6th Cir. 2014)