This page uses so called "cookies" to improve its service (i.e. "tracking"). Learn more and opt out of tracking
I agree

Olesen, Elvi J., Baar v. Tigerman: An Attack on Absolute Immunity for Arbitrators!, California Western Law Review Vol. 21 at Page 564 et seq.

Title
Olesen, Elvi J., Baar v. Tigerman: An Attack on Absolute Immunity for Arbitrators!, California Western Law Review Vol. 21 at Page 564 et seq.
Content
564 [...] 

Traditionally, arbitrators have been granted an immunity similar to the absolute judicial immunity given to judges in the decisionmaking process; they have not been held personally liable for acts and conduct associated with arbitration proceedings.2 In contrast, the second district appellate court in Baar v. Tigerman denied such arbitral immunity to an arbitrator who failed to make a timely award, and permitted a cause of action in breach of contract directly against him.3

[...]

571 [...] 

II. Arbitral Immunity

There has been little, if any controversy concerning the concept of arbitral immunity until now. According to one author:


[...]

573 [...]

B. Judicial Immunity Applied to Arbitrators: State Case Law

In the United States the concept of judicial or quasi-judicial immunity has also been extended to arbitrators. Jones v. Brown61 is generally credited for the first approval of the doctrine.


[...]

2Domke, The Arbitrator's Immunity From Liability: A Comparative Survey, 3 U. Tol. L. Rev. 99 (1971) [hereinafter cited as Domke, Arbitrator's Immunity]. See infra notes 52-60 and accompanying text.
3Baar v. Tigerman, 140 Cal. App. 3d 979, 985, 189 Cal. Rptr. 834, 839 (1983). A hearing was denied by the California Supreme Court in a 4-3 decision. The trial court sustained defendant's demurrer and granted dismissal of the suit based on the doctrine of arbitral immunity. In reversing, the court of appeals stated: "a cause of action at the least was stated in breach of contract...." Presumably, the trial court would now decide whether the other causes of action listed were applicable. See infra note 103.
6154 Iowa 74, 6 N.W. 140 (1880). See generally Glick, Bias, Fraud, Misconduct and Partiality of the Arbitrator, 22 Arb. J. 161 (1967) [hereinafter cited as Glick, Bias].

Referring Principles
A project of CENTRAL, University of Cologne.