On July 29, 2016, in Bankers Life & Casualty Insurance Co. v. CBRE, Inc., the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the arbitration panel exceeded its authority by basing its award on documents outside the parties' agreement ( (7th Cir. July 29, 2016)).

In 2011, Bankers Life & Casualty Insurance Co. (Bankers) leased office space in Chicago. Bankers hired CBRE, Inc. to negotiate a sublease to Groupon and find an alternative location for Bankers' offices. The parties entered into an agreement where CBRE would present to Bankers any offers CBRE obtained and answer any questions. Bankers told CBRE that it wanted to net $7 million from its deal with Groupon. CBRE responded by providing Bankers with cost-benefit analyses (CBAs) that compared the cost of leasing new space with the benefits of subleasing the old space to Groupon. After CBRE delivered a CBA showing a net savings of nearly $7 million if Bankers moved to another location, Bankers subleased its office to Groupon.

After Bankers discovered that CBRE's calculation was inaccurate, the parties participated in a JAMS arbitration before three JAMS arbitrators who were former judges. Bankers alleged that CBRE violated the agreement by failing to provide accurate information on and negligently misrepresenting the Groupon offer, and sought to recoup the lost $3.1 million and avoid paying commissions to CBRE. The panel issued its award in favor of CBRE, finding that it had not violated the agreement because the agreement did not explicitly require CBRE to furnish a CBA that was accurate.

Bankers moved to reconsider the award. The arbitration panel again ruled in favor of CBRE. Although the panel found that while the agreement obligated CBRE to answer questions accurately and determined that CBRE's mistake was material, it also noted that the CBAs included a disclaimer that stated CBRE was not responsible for any errors in the CBA. The district court confirmed the arbitration award, and Bankers appealed.

On appeal, the Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded. The court held that while the arbitration panel was authorized to interpret the parties' contract, the contract did not require the cost-benefit analyses. The CBAs were not only not part of the agreement, they were also not mentioned in it. Therefore, the court held that CBRE unilaterally inserted the CBA, with its disclaimer, and that the panel's reliance on the CBA and its disclaimer exceeded the panel's authority.