Defendants Jeffrey M. Smith and Sarah A. Smith appealed from an order of the U.S. District Court for the District of the Virgin Islands. The district court denied the Smiths’ motion to vacate the arbitration award entered against them, concluding that the arbitrator made a good faith attempt to interpret and apply the agreement between the parties, which included the arbitration clause. The Third Circuit affirmed.
The Smiths entered into an agreement, which included an arbitration provision, with plaintiff Bayside Construction LLC wherein Bayside was to perform repair work on the Smiths’ home located on St. Thomas, in the Virgin Islands. The Smiths declared Bayside in default for defects in the repair work but did not allow Bayside to cure the alleged defaults before declaring default, as required under the agreement. Bayside filed a demand for arbitration for amounts due and the Smiths filed a counterclaim for alleged overpayment for work performed. The arbitrator concluded that the Smiths had breached the agreement and entered an award in favor of Bayside, which included a modest reduction for “shoddy” work to the amount that Bayside had claimed.
The Smiths argued that the arbitrator “manifestly disregarded” Virgin Islands law and exceeded his powers by issuing an award to Bayside. The Third Circuit rejected the Smiths’ arguments and agreed with the district court's finding that, while the arbitrator did not cite Virgin Islands law in the award, it was consistent with authority in the territory addressing both the “opportunity to cure” before terminating an agreement and the application of set-offs for defects in construction cases. The Third Circuit concluded it was “immaterial” that the arbitrator cited an arbitration rule rather than case law from the Virgin Islands in the award since the award would have been no different under Virgin Islands law. The Third Circuit also held that since the award was consistent with authority in the Virgin Islands, the arbitrator had not “manifestly disregarded” the law or the parties' agreement, and did not exceed his powers.
Bayside Construction LLC v. Smith, No. 21-2716 (3d Cir. July 8, 2022).
©2026 Carlton Fields, P.A. Carlton Fields practices law in California through Carlton Fields, LLP. Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our Contact Us form via the link below. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites.
Perspectives on reinsurance and arbitration law and practice.
Recent Posts
Editorial Contacts
Shareholder
Shareholder
Of Counsel
Shareholder
Shareholder
