|
In a legal malpractice dispute, the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed confirmation of an award, rejecting the argument that a proposed award demonstrated that the arbitrators exceeded their powers in issuing the actual award.
In Vitale v. Bufalino, No. 260603, 2006 WL 2683815 (Mich. Ct. App. Sep. 19, 2006), a legal malpractice dispute was submitted to arbitrators for the limited purpose of determining the total amount of damages and apportioning fault between client and attorney.
The arbitrators initially proposed an award of $4,500 based on findings that damages totaled $45,000 and that the attorney was 10 percent at fault. However, the arbitrators ultimately issued an award of $4,500 based on findings that damages totaled $4,500 and that the attorney was entirely at fault.
The client moved to vacate the award, arguing that proposed award demonstrated that the arbitrators exceeded their powers in arriving at the actual award.
Initially, the Court observed that “an allegation that the arbitrators have exceeded their powers must be carefully evaluated in order to assure that this claim is not used as a ruse to induce the court to review the merits of the arbitrators’ decision.”
As the Court indicated, the proposed award was not subject to challenge since judgment was never entered on that award. In rejecting the client’s argument that the proposed award cast light on the reasoning underlying the actual award, the Court found no error “clearly apparent on the face of the actual award” and refused to “dissect the arbitrators’ deliberations and first proposed judgment."
Subscribe to a free weekly update on ADR case law and
legislation
|