In the case of Commonwealth Coatings Corp. v. Continental Casualty Co., the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Commonwealth, stating that an arbitrator must disclose any dealings that might create an impression of possible bias to a reasonable person. The dispute arose when Continental refused to pay for services rendered by Commonwealth on several projects and both parties agreed to arbitration as per their contract's terms. It was later discovered that one arbitrator had significant business relations with Continental, which he did not disclose before or during the proceedings. Although these transactions were sporadic and hadn't occurred recently, they were still considered substantial enough to potentially influence his decision-making process in favor of Continental.

In the dissenting opinion for Commonwealth Coatings Corp. v. Continental Casualty Co., Justice White, joined by Justices Harlan and Stewart, argued that arbitrators should not be held to the same standards as judges when it comes to potential conflicts of interest. They contended that because arbitration is a private system of justice agreed upon by both parties involved in a dispute, those parties have more flexibility in determining what constitutes an unacceptable conflict of interest for their chosen arbitrator(s). The dissenters also pointed out that requiring full disclosure from arbitrators could discourage qualified individuals from serving due to concerns about privacy or potential legal liability if they fail to disclose something deemed relevant. Furthermore, they suggested that such requirements might unnecessarily complicate and prolong arbitration proceedings without significantly improving fairness or impartiality.