Narrative Opinion Summary
This case involves an appeal by a contractor (Haskell) and a cross-appeal by a subcontractor (Sherway) concerning arbitration outcomes related to construction disputes. Haskell sought to vacate an arbitration award due to alleged arbitrator bias and contended that attorney’s fees should be decided by the court, not included under 'litigation' in the arbitration scope. Sherway, having prevailed in arbitration, sought attorney’s fees, which the trial court initially denied. The appellate court affirmed the arbitration award, finding no merit in claims of arbitrator bias and concluded that Haskell waived its right to contest attorney’s fees by requesting them in its counterclaim. The court reversed the trial court's denial of attorney’s fees to Sherway, emphasizing that such disputes should have been addressed during arbitration to avoid litigation delays. The decision was to affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for the award of agreed attorney’s fees to Sherway, underscoring the finality and efficiency of arbitration proceedings. Judges Ryder and Frank concurred with this decision.
Legal Issues Addressed
Arbitration Award and Alleged Arbitrator Biassubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court upheld the arbitration award despite claims of arbitrator bias, indicating that the alleged bias did not invalidate the arbitration process.
Reasoning: Haskell appeals the trial court's refusal to vacate an arbitration award due to alleged bias of one arbitrator.
Attorney’s Fees in Arbitrationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that the issue of attorney’s fees should have been contested during arbitration proceedings, as the arbitration was the proper forum for such disputes.
Reasoning: The court emphasized that this issue should have been raised during arbitration, which was designed to prevent litigation delays.
Contractual Interpretation of 'Litigation'subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The interpretation of 'litigation' in the contracts was central to the determination of whether attorney’s fees should be awarded by the court or arbitrators.
Reasoning: Haskell acknowledged the damages claims but contended that attorney's fees should be determined by the court, asserting that the term 'litigation' in their contracts did not include arbitration.
Judicial Review of Arbitration Awardssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court's decision to affirm the arbitration award demonstrates the limited scope of judicial review in arbitration matters.
Reasoning: The order confirming the arbitration award was upheld.
Waiver of Rights by Conductsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Haskell was found to have waived its right to contest Sherway's claim for attorney’s fees by its conduct during arbitration, specifically by requesting such fees in its counterclaim.
Reasoning: The court concluded that Haskell waived its right to challenge Sherway's entitlement to attorney’s fees by requesting fees in its counterclaim and asserting that court determination was necessary.