00-2009 IDS Life Insurance Company and American Express Financial Advisors, Inc. v. Royal Alliance Associates, Inc., et al.

Listen to this article

“Pursuing the analogy to Rule 65(d) of the civil rules, we hold that the question for the district court and for us is not whether the arbitrators’ reasoning is incomplete in the sense that a syllogism would be incomplete if it lacked its major or its minor premise but whether the award itself, in the sense of judgment, order, bottom line, is incomplete in the sense of having left unresolved a portion of the parties’ dispute. Inconsistency, therefore, with which the plaintiffs tax the arbitrators (probably wrongly, since a tortious- interference claim can fail even if the contracts alleged to be tortiously interfered with are enforceable), is relevant only if it renders the award incomplete or indefinite. The alleged inconsistency here (the arbitrators’ having on the one hand refused to grant the plaintiffs any relief and on the other hand refused to declare the contracts they’re alleged to have interfered with enforceable) does not render the award incomplete – to deny relief to both sides on inconsistent grounds is still to deny relief – or unclear: denial is denial.”

Affirmed in part, and reversed in part.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Andersen, J., Posner, J.