Benjamin Ciotti v. Andre Harris
332792
| Mich. Ct. App. | Dec 12, 2017Background
- Plaintiff rear-ended a tractor-trailer driven by Andre Harris and leased to AD Transportation Express (ADT); plaintiff sued Harris and ADT for negligence and vicarious liability.
- Parties agreed to binding arbitration before a three-person panel and an order requiring a "reasoned award" in writing and setting a 21-day deadline to render the award after the hearing; a confidential $0–$950,000 high–low agreement was part of the arbitration order and was to be withheld from the panel.
- The panel issued an initial, non‑unanimous award for $668,500 within 21 days but without a written explanation; defendants moved to vacate for lack of a "reasoned award."
- After defendants’ motion was filed (and plaintiff’s counsel suggested the panel consider an amendment), the panel issued an amended, written award explaining its findings and attached a supplemental invoice for $1,950.
- Trial court denied defendants’ motion to vacate, enforced the amended award, and ordered defendants to pay the additional arbitration fee; defendants appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the amended award was untimely (panel exceeded authority by issuing amended award after 21 days) | The original award met the 21‑day requirement and the panel could amend under MCL 691.1700; no statutory deadline for panel response to a request to modify | Amended award issued March 11 exceeded 21‑day limit from Feb. 4 hearing and was therefore void | The 21‑day limit applied to the original award only; amendment after motion to modify did not exceed arbitrators’ authority and was not untimely |
| Whether disclosure of the confidential high–low agreement required vacatur (procured by undue means) | Disclosure was inadvertent and had no causal effect; original award (same result and amount) predated the disclosure | Plaintiff improperly disclosed the high–low agreement to the panel, tainting the amended award | Disclosure was inadvertent, no evidence panel relied on it, and no causal nexus shown; vacatur not warranted |
| Whether the amended award satisfied the contractual requirement of a "reasoned award" | Amended award explained findings (negligence, no comparative fault, injuries), considered evidence and briefs — sufficient even if not exhaustive | Amended award was superficial and failed to apply legal concepts or analyze key evidence; original award lacked reasoning | Amended award provided sufficient explanation of basis and reasoning under Michigan precedent for a "reasoned award"; trial court correct |
| Whether the original unreasoned initial award required vacatur and new arbitration | Plaintiff corrected the deficiency by issuing an amended, reasoned award; relief is moot | Initial award violated agreement by containing only a number and no reasoning; panel exceeded powers | Court agrees initial award lacked required explanation but issue is moot because panel timely issued an adequate amended award and it was enforced |
| Whether plaintiff’s motion to enforce was premature under parties’ 28‑day compliance window | Defendants had already indicated they would not comply (motion to vacate); court may confirm award when motion to vacate is denied and MCR 3.602(I) allows one‑year | Plaintiff filed enforcement motion before 28 days had expired after original award; court lacked authority to enforce early | Motion timing was not fatal; court delayed entry of judgment until 28 days elapsed and denied vacatur, so enforcement was proper |
| Whether trial court abused discretion taxing additional arbitrator fee to defendants | The award did not allocate arbitrators’ fees; under MCR 3.602(M) and Martin, court may tax arbitrator compensation as costs | Arbitration agreement allocated fees and parties should bear neutral arbitrator share per contract; taxing fee was improper | Court did not abuse discretion in ordering defendants to pay the additional $1,950 arbitration fee under court rule allowing taxation of arbitrator fees when award is silent |
Key Cases Cited
- Cipriano v. Cipriano, 289 Mich. App. 361 (explains standard of review for confirming/vacating arbitration awards)
- Washington v. Washington, 283 Mich. App. 667 (de novo review whether arbitrator exceeded authority)
- Dohanyos v. Detrex Corp., 217 Mich. App. 171 (arbitrators exceed powers when acting beyond contract terms)
- Saveski v. Tiseo Architects, Inc., 261 Mich. App. 553 (arbitrator need not provide detailed findings unless parties stipulate form)
- Martin v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n, 204 Mich. App. 138 (court may tax arbitrators’ compensation as costs under MCR 3.602(M) despite contrary contractual provision)
- Bolhuis Lumber & Mfg. Co. v. Brower, 252 Mich. 562 (failure to issue award within party‑specified time is not automatic ground for vacatur absent stipulation)
- Patrick v. Batten, 123 Mich. 203 (historical support for timing doctrine)
- PaineWebber Group, Inc. v. Zinsmeyer Trusts P'ship, 187 F.3d 988 (defining "other undue means" as intentional misconduct, not sloppy lawyering)
- Am. Postal Workers Union v. U.S. Postal Serv., 52 F.3d 359 (discusses degree of misconduct required to vacate for "other undue means")