Citation: Natare Corporation v. D.S.I. Duraplastec Systems, Inc. d/b/a

Name:
Course:
Professor:
Date:
Case brief assignment
Citation: Natare Corporation v. D.S.I. Duraplastec Systems, Inc., d/b/a
D.S.I., Stewart J. "Jason" Mart, and Aquatic Renovation Systems, Inc, No. 49S05-0512-CV-637, October 31, 2006 (Natare Corporation 1).
Facts: Natare Corporation and DSI were rival companies; they had previously settled and agreed not to disseminate disparaging information. The two parties also agreed to arbitration in an event where future disputes might arise based on the agreement (Natare Corporation 2). According to the agreement, if one party breached the settlement, the affected company should receive a minimum settlement of $ 5,000 for all the damages and other expenses incurred, including the attorney fee and any other cost incurred during the process of pursuing the claim (Natare Corporation 2).
Natare Corporation lost an important customer as a result of a disparagement caused by DSI. Natare Corporation lost $ 45,000. Even though DSI and Natare Corporation had entered into arbitration, DSI breached the agreement (Natare Corporation 2). The arbitrator awarded Natare Corporation $ 5,000; this was not the actual damages incurred by Natare Corporation after DSI breached their agreement (Natare Corporation 2).
Natare Corporation filed a lawsuit claiming to have been wrongly denied the attorney fee, which it was entitled to. The Indiana court ruled that both companies were not entitled to attorney fee or any costs (Natare Corporation 2). Natare Corporation sought for a judicial review challenging the court's decision. According to the Supreme Court ruling, the arbitrator did not exceed his power. However, the court of Appeal reviewed the case and decided that the arbitrator had exceeded his authority, the case was remanded (Natare Corporation 3).
The trial court concluded that the arbitrator understood the terms and conditions regarding attorney fee. Based on other determination set for...