Restore with Apex, Inc., etc. v. Rocca, [Ms. SC-2025-0173, Oct. 17, 2025] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. 2025). In a per curiam opinion, the Court affirms (Stewart, C.J., and Shaw, Wise, Bryan, Mendheim, Cook, McCool, and Lewis, JJ., concur; Sellers, J., concurs in the result) the Jefferson Circuit Court’s denial of Restore with Apex, Inc., d/b/a Apex Restoration DKI’s (“Apex”), motion to vacate a judgment on an arbitration award entered in favor of Zachary Rocca. The Court first explains that as relevant to Apex’s motion, a court “‘may’ vacate an award if ‘there was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrator[],’ the arbitrator was ‘guilty of misconduct,’ or the arbitrator ‘exceeded [his or her] powers.’” Ms. **10-11, citing 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(2)-(4).
The Court rejects Apex’s assertion that the arbitrator had a conflict of interest. Apex failed to object to the arbitrator’s appointment despite knowledge of the alleged conflict. Prior to the arbitrator’s appointment, Apex’s CEO, Greg Driver, knew that the arbitrator’s law firm had previously represented Apex and that the relationship had soured. Therefore, “Apex was ‘bound by [Driver’s] knowledge.’” Ms. **14-15, quoting Central of Georgia Ry. v. Joseph, 125 Ala. 313, 319, 28 So. 35, 37 (1900). The Court reiterates that “‘a corporation is held responsible for the knowledge acquired by its agents while acting within the scope of their employment.’” Ms. *14, quoting Birmingham Boys’ Club, Inc. v. Transamerica Ins. Co., 295 Ala. 177, 180, 325 So. 2d 167, 169 (1976).
The Court also concludes that the arbitrator did not commit misconduct by denying Apex’s motion for a continuance of the final hearing or by misapplying Alabama law. As to the latter, the Court reiterates “‘there is no misconduct, misbehavior, or exceeding of powers’ if an arbitrator simply ‘might have decided the [legal] issue incorrectly.’” Ms. *18, quoting Cavalier Mfg., Inc. v. Gant, 143 So. 3d 762, 770 (Ala. 2013).