Is the timeliness of petitioners' district court actions governed by the one-year period provided in the Common Crop Insurance Policy or by §12 of the Federal Arbitration Act?

QUESTION PRESENTED Every federally sanctioned crop insurance policy requires that the insured and insurer enter into what is known as the Common Crop Insurance Policy, the terms of which are set out in a federal regulation, 7 C.F.R. §457.8. That policy contains a provision requiring arbitration of any disputes. That policy further allows either party to seek judicial review of an arbitrator’s decision by filing suit “not later than one year after the date the arbitration decision was rendered.” Section 12 of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §12, provides that a motion to vacate, modify, or correct an arbitration award must be made within three months after the award is rendered. The petitioners in these two cases purchased crop insurance policies and, following disputes with the insurance companies that issued those policies, took those disputes to arbitration where they were unsuccessful. The petitioners then filed federal court actions within one year of the arbitration decisions, but outside the three month period provided in 9U.S.C. §12. The questions presented are: Is the timeliness of petitioners’ district court actions governed by the oneyear period provided in the Common Crop Insurance Policy or by §12 of the Federal Arbitration Act? And, if the latter controls, may the time period for challenging an arbitration decision provided in that statute be extended by agreement of the parties?