| 1. Section 23(a)(2) is based on UAA Section 12(a)(2). The |
reason "evident partiality" is a grounds for vacatur only for |
a neutral arbitrator is because non-neutral arbitrators, |
unless otherwise agreed, serve as representatives of the |
parties appointing them. As such, these non-neutral, party- |
appointed arbitrators are not expected to be impartial in the |
same sense as neutral arbitrators. Macneil Treatise § 28.4. |
However, corruption and misconduct are grounds to vacate an |
award by both neutral arbitrators and non-neutral arbitrators |
appointed by the parties. As to misconduct, before courts will |
vacate an award on this ground, objecting parties must |
demonstrate that the misconduct actually prejudiced their |
rights. Creative Homes & Millwork, Inc. v. Hinkle, 426 S.E.2d |
480 (N.C. Ct App. 1993). Courts have not required a showing of |
prejudice when parties challenge an arbitration award on |
grounds of evident partiality of the neutral arbitrator or |
corruption in any of the arbitrators. Gaines Constr. Co. v. |
Carol City Ut., Inc., 164 So. 2d 270 (Fl. Dist. Ct. 1964); |
Northwest Mech., Inc. v. Public Ut. Comm'n, 283 N.W.2d 522 |
(Minn. 1979); Egan & Sons Co. v. Mears Park Dev. Co., 414 |
N.W.2d 785 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987). Corruption is also a ground |
for vacatur in Section 23(a)(1) that does not require any |
showing of prejudice. |