192 So. 3d 1089
Miss. Ct. App.2016Background
- City of Hattiesburg contracted with Precision Construction, LLC to replace water and sewer lines; unexpected site conditions, undisclosed old lines, and missing easements caused delays and extra work.
- Precision submitted change orders; the City refused payment, project stalled, and Precision terminated the contract and demanded arbitration under the parties’ contract and the Mississippi Construction Arbitration Act.
- Parties agreed to arbitration with no transcript of the hearing; arbitrator found multiple breaches by the City and awarded damages and attorneys’ fees in two awards (initial damages award and a later supplemental fee award).
- The City moved for reconsideration before the arbitrator (partly untimely) and later moved in circuit court to modify the award under Miss. Code Ann. § 11-15-135 for alleged evident miscalculations.
- Circuit court reduced the award only for a concession by Precision ($63,520.74) and confirmed the remainder; judgment for Precision entered for $856,666.46 plus interest; City appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (City) | Defendant's Argument (Precision) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether arbitrator erred by treating City’s reconsideration motion as untimely | Award was interlocutory; 20-day period for reconsideration did not begin until final award (so motion was timely) | City waived the issue by failing to raise it in circuit court | Waived — City did not present the argument to trial court, so appellate review barred |
| Whether award contains "evident miscalculation" re: mobilizations | Arbitrator overstated mobilization damages by $93,000 because three mobilizations were already paid under contract | Award reflected extra (five) demobilizations/remobilizations caused by City; record does not show an unambiguous mathematical error | No evident miscalculation; record indeterminate and arbitral fact finding controls |
| Whether award contains "evident miscalculation" re: lost profits on unused 30-inch pipe | Arbitrator failed to deduct costs previously paid and other items (overhead, inflation), so lost-profits figure is erroneous | Calculations and supporting testimony were presented at arbitration; City’s alternative math is not evident on face of award | No evident miscalculation; challenges go to merits, not the narrow statutory standard for correction |
| Scope of judicial review for arbitration awards | (Implicit) Court should correct clear mathematical errors | Arbitration awards are narrowly reviewable; courts cannot relitigate merits | Affirmed: only statutory grounds (e.g., clear mathematical error) permit modification; City failed to show one |
Key Cases Cited
- Craig v. Barber, 524 So. 2d 974 (Miss. 1988) (describing narrow scope of judicial review of arbitration awards)
- Hutto v. Jordan, 36 So. 2d 809 (Miss. 1948) (arbitration agreements treated like settlements; courts avoid reexamining merits)
- D’Angelo v. Hometown Concepts Inc., 791 So. 2d 270 (Miss. Ct. App. 2001) (courts should not inquire into evidentiary basis of arbitration awards)
- Johnson Land Co. v. C.E. Frazier Constr. Co., 925 So. 2d 80 (Miss. 2006) (award must be confirmed absent statutory grounds to vacate/modify)
- Lagstein v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, 607 F.3d 634 (9th Cir. 2010) (size or perceived unreasonableness of award is not alone a basis to vacate)