Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

When Logic Doesn’t Matter: Why ‘Irrational’ Isn’t a Ground to Overturn an Arbitration Award in Tennessee

By Matthew DeVries on October 16, 2025
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

Arbitration has long been viewed as a faster, more efficient alternative to litigation. But anyone involved in construction disputes today knows that is not always the case. The process can be just as costly, sometimes taking as long as a court case. Yet one thing remains consistent, and it is the most important point for everyone in the construction process to understand before signing an arbitration clause: once an arbitrator decides, that decision is almost always final.

That reality was reinforced in a recent Tennessee Court of Appeals decision, MidSouth Construction, LLC v. Burstiner (June 12, 2025) (pdf). The case involved a homeowner who tried to overturn an arbitration award following a dispute about defective deck construction. The homeowner argued that the arbitrator’s decision was “fundamentally irrational.” The court rejected that argument.

Under the Tennessee Uniform Arbitration Act (TUAA), a court may vacate an arbitration award only in very limited circumstances, such as corruption, fraud, partiality, or if the arbitrator exceeded his powers. The idea of a “fundamentally irrational” or “completely irrational” award does not exist under Tennessee law, although some federal courts have recognized this standard. See, e.g., Kyocdera  Corp. v. Prudential-Bache Trade Services, Inc., 341 F.3d 987, 997 (9th Cir. 2003) (finding that arbitrators “exceed their powers,” thus requiring a court to vacate an award, when the award is ‘completely irrational.”)

The Court of Appeals in Midsouthconfirmed that Tennessee courts cannot overturn arbitration awards simply because they might involve factual or legal mistakes. One key issue in this case was whether the contractor had been given a reasonable opportunity to cure defective work. The arbitrator found that MidSouth had offered to make repairs two or three times but that the homeowner refused access to the property. Even though the work was imperfect, the arbitrator ruled in favor of the contractor, finding that the owner had breached the duty to allow a reasonable opportunity to cure. The appellate court did not reweigh the evidence or second-guess that conclusion.

The lesson for everyone in the construction process (owners, developers, contractors, and subcontractors) is clear. Arbitration gives the arbitrator wide discretion, and once an award is issued, it is rarely disturbed. Whether you win or lose, the decision is almost always final.

Photo of Matthew DeVries Matthew DeVries

Matt is a shareholder at Buchalter, and father of seven young kids.

Read more about Matthew DeVriesEmailMatthew's Linkedin ProfileMatthew's Twitter Profile
  • Posted in:
    Arbitration and ADR, Real Estate & Construction
  • Blog:
    Best Practices Construction Law
  • Organization:
    Matthew DeVries
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo