345 P.3d 213
Idaho2015Background
- Cedillo was injured in a motorcycle accident and had a UIM policy with Farmers; Steele carried separate coverage.
- Arbitration began November 2012; interim award issued January 16, 2013 totaling $406,700 in damages.
- Final award April 29, 2013 reduced interim amount after applying prior payments, yielding $203,468 total with $103,135 prejudgment interest.
- Farmers later paid $100,333 in March 2013; arbitrator amended the final award to credit that payment to interest, leaving a small balance.
- Farmers sought modification; district court confirmed amended award and later awarded Cedillo attorney fees; Farmers appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court properly confirmed the arbitrator's award | Cedillo argues miscalculation/imperfection in form warrant modification | Farmers contends arithmetic miscalculation and improper application of payments | Yes; court affirmed confirmation |
| Whether the arbitrator misapplied Farmers' March 2013 payment to interest rather than principal | Cedillo contends payment should reduce principal to zero balance | Farmers argues payment should reduce interest as applied by arbitrator | Arbitrator's legal choice to apply to interest affirmed; no math error |
| Whether the award was imperfect in form | Cedillo challenges form due to 36-day credit being inconsistent with application of payment | Farmers asserts procedural imperfection only if related to merits | Not imperfect in form; not procedurally defective to justify modification |
| Whether attorney fees were properly awarded | Cedillo seeks fees under 41-1839 based on damages recovered in arbitration | Farmers objects that contract is illegal or does not cover arbitration fees | Award upheld; contract valid and fees recoverable; prejudgment interest included per agreement |
| Whether Cedillo is entitled to attorney fees on appeal | Cedillo seeks appellate fees under 41-1839 | Farmers argues against further fees on appeal | Yes; Cedillo awarded appellate fees |
Key Cases Cited
- Cranney v. Mut. of Enumclaw Ins. Co., 145 Idaho 6 (2007) (limits modification grounds to statutory relief grounds)
- Reichert, American Foreign Ins. Co. v. Reichert, 140 Idaho 394 (2004) (math vs. legal error distinction in prejudgment interest)
- Schilling v. Allstate Ins. Co., 132 Idaho 927 (1999) (prejudgment interest and modification of awards; tension with Reichert)
- Moore v. Omnicare, Inc., 141 Idaho 809 (2005) (arbitrator’s legal conclusions reviewable; cannot modify legal errors)
- Landmark v. Mader Agency, Inc., 126 Idaho 74 (1994) (procedural imperfections; limits on revising damages on form)
- Rogers v. Yellowstone Park Co., 97 Idaho 14 (1974) (interspousal damages; separate property rule supports recovery)
- Parsons v. Mut. of Enumclaw Ins. Co., 143 Idaho 743 (2007) (appeal-based entitlement to attorney fees when initially awarded in trial court)
- TD Ameritrade, Inc. v. McLaughlin, Piven, Vogel Sec., Inc., 953 A.2d 726 (Del. Ch. 2008) (face-value math errors differ from legal allocation decisions)