1. (a) An arbitrator may award punitive damages or other exemplary relief if such an award is authorized by law in a civil action involving the same claim and the evidence produced at the hearing justifies the award under the legal standards otherwise applicable to the claim.
2. (b) An arbitrator may award reasonable attorney's fees and other reasonable expenses of arbitration if such an award is authorized by law in a civil action involving the same claim or by the agreement of the parties to the arbitration proceeding.
3. (c) As to all remedies other than those authorized by subsections (a) and (b), an arbitrator may order such remedies as the arbitrator considers just and appropriate under the circumstances of the arbitration proceeding. The fact that such a remedy could not or would not be granted by the court is not a ground for refusing to confirm an award under section 658A-22 or for vacating an award under section 658A-23.
4. (d) An arbitrator's expenses and fees, together with other expenses, shall be paid as provided in the award.
5. (e) If an arbitrator awards punitive damages or other exemplary relief under subsection (a), the arbitrator shall specify in the award the basis in fact justifying and the basis in law authorizing the award and state separately the amount of the punitive damages or other exemplary relief.

[L 2001, c 265, pt of §1]

Case Notes

The plain language of subsection (b) and its related commentary from the Uniform Arbitration Act established that awards of attorneys' fees can be valid and authorized based on a party agreement, even if the resulting award exceeds the twenty-five per cent of the judgment limitation included in §607-14. 123 H. 476, 236 P.3d 456 (2010).

Circuit court did not err in confirming the remainder of a final arbitration award in its entirety even if the remedy provided in the award could not or would not be granted by the court because merits of the award were outside the scope of permitted judicial review. 139 H. 445, 393 P.3d 997 (2017).

Where employee, a physical education teacher, alleged that employer refused to hire her in retaliation for sexual harassment complaint, it was unconscionable and unenforceable to require employee to pay half the estimated arbitration costs up front in order to access the arbitral forum. In this case, striking this requirement in the arbitration provision provided an insufficient remedy; rather, the entire arbitration provision had to be invalidated. 140 H. 325, 400 P.3d 526 (2017).

Where the determination of the reasonableness of the attorneys' fees was clearly within the scope of the arbitrator's authority and could not be vacated or modified by a reviewing court simply based on the argument that the award was unreasonable, the arbitrators' award of attorneys' fees well in excess of twenty-five per cent of the principal and interest amount of the award was not unreasonable and the arbitrators did not exceed their powers. 121 H. 110 (App.), 214 P.3d 1100 (2009).

Cited: 654 F. Supp. 2d 1142 (2009).