|
The Superior Court of Connecticut held that it would only modify an arbitration award "so as to effect the intent thereof and promote justice between the parties," and refused to add language highlighting issues the arbitrator did not address.
In General Systems Solutions, Inc. v. Renuit Now, Inc., No. 4006195, 2006 WL 3525022 (Conn. Super. Nov. 17, 2006), an arbitrator issued an interim award in favor of plaintiff General Systems Solutions, Inc. (GSS). Renuit Now, Inc. (Renuit) did not object to the interim award, but Renuit's owner, Computerized Vehicle Registration (CVR) moved to modify the award and clarify the arbitrator's intent. CVR claimed that it was not a proper party for arbitration and wished to add language indicating the arbitrator only had jurisdiction over CVR for purposes of the interim award.
The Court rejected this request to modify the award, citing Connecticut's policy of "minimiz[ing] interference with an efficient and economical system of alternative dispute resolution." Economos v. Liljedahl Bros., Inc., 901 A.2d 1198 (Conn. 2006). Connecticut law provides that a court may only modify an arbitral award when it is "imperfect in matter of form not affecting the merits of the controversy, in order to "promote justice between the parties." Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 52-419; Milford v. Coppola Construction Co., 891 A.2d 31 (Conn. App. 2006).
Here, the arbitrator had not articulated the scope of his jurisdiction over CVR during the arbitration proceedings. Therefore, it was inappropriate for the Court to expand an arbitral award by adding language that would fail to resolve an issue the arbitrator had not even considered in the first place.
Subscribe to a free weekly update on ADR case law and
legislation
|