Clanton v. Ray
979 N.E.2d 371
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Clanton filed two separate negligence actions against Ray (2001 incident) and Raina (2002 incident); actions were consolidated for arbitration.
- Parties opted into voluntary binding arbitration with high/low liability caps: Ray between $250,000 and $600,000; Raina fixed at $90,250.
- Arbitration agreement barred any disclosure of high/low figures to the arbitrator.
- Arbitrator issued March 26, 2010, finding $550,000 in damages, indivisible injuries, and 50% liability for each defendant.
- Ray sought remand for clarification of the award; the circuit court remanded; arbitrator issued May 6, 2010, clarifying $275,000 for Ray and $90,250 for Raina under the high/low framework.
- Judgment entered against Ray for $275,000 and against Raina for $90,250; Clanton appealed to seek enforcement of the March 26 award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether remand for clarification was proper. | Clanton argues remand was improper or untimely. | Ray asserts timely remand and need for clarification. | Remand proper; timely under §9; ambiguity justified clarification. |
| Whether May 6 award vacates March 26 award due to high/low limits. | Clanton contends May 6 framed as improper modification. | Ray contends high/low limits valid under agreement. | May 6 award vacated; arbitrator exceeded authority by relying on undisclosed high/low limits. |
| Whether March 26 award was ambiguous on joint and several liability. | Clanton argues indivisible injuries imply joint/several liability. | Ray argues no clear indication of joint/several liability. | March 26 award ambiguous; remand necessary to resolve liability structure. |
Key Cases Cited
- Harris v. Allied American Insurance Co., 152 Ill. App. 3d 88 (Ill. App. 1987) (incomplete award; lack of finality when portion of award undecided)
- Burke v. 12 Rothschild’s Liquar Mart, Inc., 148 Ill. 2d 429 (Ill. 1992) (setoff does not bar joint and several liability among tortfeasors)
- Bankers Leasing Ass’n v. Pranno, 288 Ill. App. 3d 255 (Ill. App. 1997) (untimely clarification request; court distinguishes on remand authority)
- Federal Signal Corp. v. SLC Technologies, Inc., 318 Ill. App. 3d 1101 (Ill. App. 2001) (court allowed court-initiated remand for clarification despite untimely party action)
- Chicago Teachers Union, Local No. 1 v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago, 86 Ill. 2d 469 (Ill. 1981) (arbitration decisions bargained for; limited review authority)