# Crescent Property Partners, LLC v. American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Co.

> Supreme Court of Louisiana · January 28, 2015 · 158 So. 3d 798

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4817473

## Case

- **Full name:** CRESCENT PROPERTY PARTNERS, LLC v. AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Bison Building Materials of Texas, Inc. Greystar Development and Construction, LP v. Crescent Property Partners, LLC, Bison Building Materials of Texas, Inc. Bison Building Materials of Texas, Inc., Bistrol Fiberlite Industries, Inc., Champion Window, Inc. v. Greystar Development and Construction, LP
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Louisiana
- **Decided:** January 28, 2015
- **Citations:** 158 So. 3d 798; 2015 WL 543248
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Johnson
- **Judges:** Crichton, Elected, Guidry, Hoc, Johnson, Reasons, Rendered, Sits, Victory
- **Cited by:** 12 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4817473

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that an arbitrator is not guilty of misconduct merely because he could have rendered a different award

## Opinion text

JOHNSON, Chief Justice,
concurs and assigns reasons.
hi reluctantly concur with the majority opinion. In my view, there is no question that the arbitration panel committed an error of law in concluding that the 2003 amendment to La. R.S. 9:2772, reducing the period of peremption for construction claims from seven years to five years, could be retroactively applied to perempt Crescent’s claims. However, as recognized by the majority, such an error of law does not permit vacatur of the arbitration panel’s award. This court has long held that an arbitration award can only be challenged on the specific grounds |2set forth in the arbitration statutes. 1 And, these specific grounds do not include “good faith” errors of law. Thus, despite the error committed by the arbitration panel, I must agree with the majority’s conclusion that the court of appeal erred in reversing the district court’s judgment confirming the arbitration panel’s award. ■
. See, e.g., Firmin v. Garber, 353 So.2d 975 (La.1977); National Tea Co. v. Richmond, 548 So.2d 930

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4817473. Public record. Not legal advice.