Legal Opinion

Ciampa v. Chubb Group of Insurance Companies

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Decided July 26, 1988No. 87-766PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Accepting as generally valid the functus officio principle relied on by the defendant (Chubb) — i.e., the principle that an arbitrator is without power to modify his final award except where the controlling statute or the parties authorize modification, see La Vale Plaza, Inc. v. R.S. Noonan, Inc., 378 F.2d 569, 572 (3d Cir. 1967) — we nevertheless hold that the modification effected by the arbitrator in this case fell within the statutory authorization. The original award, issued on October 21, 1986, stated that “[t]he present value of the amount of $138,750.00 [the loss of earnings found by…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. La Vale Plaza, Inc., a New York Corporation v. R. S. Noonan, Inc., a Pennsylvania CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1967
  2. Royal Indemnity Co. v. BlakelyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1977
  3. Town of Lexington v. Town of BedfordMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1979
  4. Quirk v. Data Terminal Systems, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1985

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Bank of America, N.A. v. CaseyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2016
  2. Connecticut Valley Sanitary Waste Disposal, Inc. v. ZielinskiMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2002
  3. Baxter Health Care, Corp. v. Harvard Apparatus, Inc.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 1993
  4. Harvard Community Health Plan, Inc. v. ZackMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1992
  5. Dadak v. Commerce InsuranceMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2001

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API