No. 1-09- 3061

1 SECOND DIVISION JANUA RY 18, 2011 UNITE D AUTOMOBILE INS URANCE ) COMPANY, ) Appe al fro m the ) Ci rcu i t Cou rt of Pl ai n ti f f -A pp el l an t, ) Coo k C oun ty ) v. ) No. 07 CH 14380 ) SIDNEY WIL SON a

nd W OODR OW WIL SON, ) Ho no r ab le

) Da nie l A. Rile y, Defendan ts-Appellees. ) Judge Presidin g. JUS TI CE CON NOR S d elivered t he judg ment o f the co ur t , w ith o pinion. Pr esiding J ust ice Cu nningham and J ust ice Kar nezis co ncur in the ju dgment and o pinion. OPINI ON Thi s appeal

aris es f rom plai ntif f Un ited A uto mobi le Insuranc e Compan

y' s attempt to vacate an
ar bitr at ion aw ar d t hat was ent er ed in favo r o f defend ant s Sidne y Wi lson a nd Wo od ro w Wilson. The ci rcu i t cou rt gran ted de f en da nts ' m oti on to d i sm i ss pl ai nti f f 's com pl ai nt p urs ua nt to s ec ti on 2 -61 9(a

) of the C ode of

Ci vi l Procedu re (735 ILCS 5/2-61 9(a) (W est 200 8)). We af

f i rm . BACK GROUND Defe ndan ts were in volv ed i n a h it-and-run c ar accident on Feb ruary 2, 2004, and they subse quently

fi le d a clai m un der the uni

nsured m ot orist provisi

on of thei r auto in surance pol

ic y, wh ic h ha d b een i ss ue d by pl ai nti f f . How ever, the

ve hi cl e w asl ater s tol en

be f ore p l ai nti f f coul d i ns pe ct i t f or pu rp ose s of ev al ua ti n g th e c l ai m . Al th oug h th e v eh i cl e w as l ate r re cov ered , i t wa s j un ke d p rior to be i ng i ns pected
. On Ja nu ary 27, 200 5, p l ai

nti f f f i l ed a dec l ara tory j udg men t ac ti on i n th e c i rcu i t cou rt of Cook County, whi

ch asked the

ci rcuit court t o fi

nd that defen

dants' cl ai m was not covered under the poli cy and that the poli

cy was void due to defendan ts' alle ged spoli

ation of ev

ide nce. However, the i

nsuran ceNo. 1-09- 3061

2

policy contain ed an arb itration provi sion, as required b y s ection 143a(1) of the Il li nois Insuranc e Code (2 15 I LCS 5/ 143 a( 1) (Wes t 200 2) ). Plaint iff moved t o s t ay arbit ra t ion p ending r eso lut ion o f the dec larat or y judgment act ion. The circu it co ur t denied plaint iff 's mot ion t o s t ay and o rd er ed t hat t he parties proceed

to arbi tration on al l i ssues, n otabl y i nc l udi ng th e i ssue of cove rage. Plai ntif f appea le d the trial

court 's order declin

in g to stay arb itration, an

d we reversed. See United Automobile Insurance Co. v. Wilson , No. 1- 05-0372 (Mar. 16, 2005) ( unpubl is hed order under Su pr em e C our t Ru l e 2 3) . We f

oun d th at th e c i rc ui t cou rt had er re d b y orderi n g th e p ar ti es i n to
ar bit r at io n be fo r e d ec idin g w he t he rt he po licy c o ve r ed t he 20 04 ac cid en t
. We no t ed t ha t t his is su e is
co nt r o lled by State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Yapejian , 152 Ill . 2d 533 (1992), which hel d that arbi trat ion un der section 143a(1) i s lim ited to o nl

y “ dis putes concerni

ng covered cl

ai ms , once coverage was establ

is hed.” Id. at 541. U

nde r Yapejian , wh et he ro rno t co ve r ag e e xist s is an iss ue fo rt he cir cu it court to determi

ne. Once the ci rcuit court fin

ds that a particular cla

im is covered, section 143a(1)
ma ndates that any

dis putes over that clai

m b e arbi trat ed. We conseque

ntly reversed an

d reman ded “wi th in structions to st ay

arbi trat ion pe ndi ng resol ution of the coverage i

ssues b y the trial court .” United A utomobil e Insurance Co ., sli p op. at 4. Plai ntif f di d not move f

or a stay of the arbi

trat ion duri

ng the appeal, and whi

le the appeal

was pend ing t he ar bitr at ion had co mmenced. The ar bitr at or hear d evide nce o n all issues, including
co ver age , bu t t he ar bitr at or had no t issued a r uling by the t ime we re so lved t he ap pea l. Afte r r ece iving
our m andate, the ci

rcui t court stay

ed arbi tration and procee ded to a b ench tria l on the cove rage i ssu e. On Febr uar y 1, 2 007 , t he circ uit co ur t issued a wr itt en memor andu m op inion and o rd er . T he circui t co urt found that no spoliation of eviden ce had occurr ed and that t he uni nsured moto rist pr ovisio n of t he insur ance po licy cover ed t he 20 04 a ccide nt . H aving fo und t hat co ver age exist ed, t he circu it co ur t co mpelled ar bitr at ion o n t he r emaining dispu t es. Plaint iff app ealed t he circ uit co ur t 'sNo. 1-09- 3061

3

ruli ng, and we a

ff irm ed. See United Automobile Insurance Co. v. Wilson , No. 1- 07-0424 (Sept. 4, 2007)(un pub l i shed order

und er Suprem

e Court Ru

l e 23). How ever, pl

ai nti f f ag ai n d i d n ot obta i n a sta y of arbi trati on p en di ng appe al , so a

rb i trati on
re sumed aft er t rial. O n May 24 , 2 007 , t he ar bitr at or issued an aw ar d in favo r o f defend ant s in the
am ount o f $11,000 to Woodr ow Wils on and $9,000 to Sidney Wi ls on. Six day s later, o n May

30, 200 7, plaint iff

fil ed t he inst ant dec larat or y judgment act ion in t he circ uit co ur t of Co ok Co unt y seek ing to vacate the arbi

trat ion a ward. Defen

dants f il ed a m ot ion to dismi

ss the com

pla in t, which was granted on October 13, 2009. T he ci rcuit court subsequentl

y c onfi rmed the arbitration award an d entered j udg men t i n f av or of de f en da nts on O ctob er 2 9, 2 009 . Pl ai nti f f ti mel y appe al ed , an d th i s c as e i s n

ow bef ore us for the third tim

e. AN

AL YSIS Plaint iff 's brief o n app eal leave s a g re at dea l to be de sired in ter ms of clar ity o f arg ument and le gal support. Despi

te the brief

's conv oluted drafti

ng an d sparse legal

ci tation, we perceiv

e that plai ntif f 's pri mary argum en t is that the arb i tration awar d i s void be caus e arb i

tration com menced b ef

ore the ci rcuit court det ermi

ned the issue of cove

rage. We rev ie w an order of di sm

is sal under section 2-619(a) of the Code of Ci vi l Procedure de novo , ac ce pti n g a s tr ue al l we l l -p l ed f acts c on tai n ed i n th e c om pl ai n t an d i n an y un con tradi cte d a f f i da v i ts attached to the motion. See Coady v. Harpo, Inc. , 30 8 Il l . A pp. 3d 1 53, 158 -59(19 99) . The q ue sti on
on r eview is “ ' whe t her t he exist ence of a genu ine issue o f mate rial fact sho uld have pr eclud ed t he dis mi ssal or, absent such an

is sue of f act, whether dis

mi ssal is proper as a matter of law.' ” Doyle v. Holy Cross Hos

pital , 186 Ill . 2d 104, 110 (1999) (quo ting Kedzie & 103rd Currenc

y Exchange, Inc. v. Hodge , 156 Il

l . 2d 112 , 116-1 7 (199 3)). Jud icial review o f a binding ar bitr at ion aw ar d is mor e limi t ed t han r eview o f a dec ision o f theNo. 1-09- 3061

4

trial cou rt ( Rauh v. Rockford Products Corp. , 143 Ill . 2d 377, 394 (1991)), and we wi ll construe an award so as to uphold it whe never possib le

( Garver v. Fer

guson , 76 Ill . 2d 1, 10 (1979)). Under section 143a of

the Ill in ois Ins urance Code, “[a] ny

de ci si on m ade b y the arbi trator s sha

l l be bi nd i ng f or t he amo unt of d amage s no t exce eding $ 50, 000 for bod ily injury to or dea t h of a ny one p er so n, $10 0, 000 for bod ily

injury to or dea t h of 2 or mor e pe rso ns in any one mot or vehicle ac cident , o r t he
corr esponding poli

cy l im its for bodil

y i nj ury or deat h, whichever i s less .” 215 I LCS 5/143a (West 2008). A bi

ndi ng arbi trat ion a ward under section 143a i s subj ect to only li mi ted judici al

review under section 12 of

the Uniform

Arbi trat ion A ct (710 ILCS 5/12 (West 2008)). See Reed v. Farmers Insurance Group , 188 Il

l . 2d 168 , 172 (1 999). Bec aus e t he t ot al arbit ra t ion aw ar d in favo r o f bot h defend ant s wa s o nly $20, 000 , it is binding and sub je ct to only

li mi ted judici al

review. Under the Uni

form Arbi trat ion A ct, a bin din g award ma

y only be vacated where “(1) The award was pr ocur ed by corr uption, fraud o r ot her undue means; (2) Th ere

wa s evi dent p arti al i ty by an arbi trator appoi nte d a s a ne utra l or
co rrup t io n inan y o ne o f t he ar bit r at o r s o rmisc o nd uc t pr eju di cin g t he r ig ht s o f any p ar t y; (3) T he arbi

trat ors exceeded t hei

r po wers; (4) T he arbi

trat ors r efused to po stpo ne the hearin g upon suffi

cien t cause be i ng sh own the ref or or re f us ed to he ar e vi denc e m aterial to the con trov ers y or otherwi se s o conducted the heari

ng, c ontrary

to the provi sions of

Secti on 5 [( 710 ILCS 5/5 (W

est 200 8)) ], a s to p rejudi

cesu bs tan ti al l y the righ ts of a p arty; or ( 5) T he r e w as no ar bit r at io n a gr ee men t an d t he iss ue wa s no t ad ve r se ly determ i ne d i n pr oceed i ngs und er Section 2 [( 710 IL CS 5/2(We st 2008 )) ] a nd t he party did not part ic ipa

te in the arbi trat ion h earin g without raisi

ng the obj ection; butNo. 1-09- 3061

5

t he fact t hat t he r elief was su ch t hat it co uld no t or wo uld no t be gr ant ed by t he circui t co urt is n

ot gro und for vacating or refusin g to confi rm the award.” 710 ILCS 5/12 (West 2008) Ill i noi s c as e l aw has a l so e sta bl i sh ed tha t an aw ard may be va ca ted “ i f i t res ul ts i n th e c ontr aven ti on of a pa ra mou nt co nsider at ion o f public po licy [cita t ion] , w her e a g ro ss er ro r o f law o r fac t app ear s o n t he face o f the awa rd [c itat ion] , o r w her e t he aw ar d fails to dispo se o f all m at t er s pr op er ly submi

t t ed t o t he arbi trat ors [citation].” Edwar d Electric Co. v. Automation, Inc. , 229 Il l . Ap p. 3d 89 , 98 (19 92). In i ts brie f on appea

l pl ai ntif f repeatedl

y asserts that the award was “v oid ab initio ” because arb i tration procee di ngs com menced b ef

ore the c i rcui t court determ

i ne d the cove rage i ssue. It appe ars that p lai ntif f i ntends to base i

ts argu men

t o n section 12(a)(3) of the Unif orm Arbi trat ion Act (710 ILCS 5/12(a)(3) (West 2008)), on the ground that t he arbi trat or exceeded his authority b y h earin g evi dence b ef orecov erag e w as deter m i n ed b y th e c i rc ui t cou rt. We pr es ume t ha t ar bit r at o r s a ct wit hin t he ir a ut ho r it y, a nd t he sc o pe o f an ar bit r at o r ’s po we r s is expresse d by

the arbi trat ion a greeme nt. See Rauh v. Rockford Products Corp. , 143 Il l . 2d 377(1991 ). Ho weve r, plaint iff

do es no t app ear t o ha ve include d a c op y of t he insur ance po licy or r elevant
ar bit r at io n c lau se in t he r ec o r d, no rha s p laint iff dir ec t ed o ur at t en t io n t o wh er e it migh t be fo un d if it exists. It is

the appella

nt’s burden

to provide a c omplete record for t he appeal . See Altaf v. Hanover Squar e Con domin ium As

s’n N o. 1 , 18 8 Il

l . A pp. 3d 5 33, 539(19 89) ; s eealso Mielke v. C ondell Memorial Hospital , 1 24 I ll. App. 3d 4 2, 48- 49 ( 198 4) (no t ing t hat we a re “not obligat ed t o s ear ch t he record f or evi den ce s upporti ng r ev ersa l of the tri al

court”); Ill . S. Ct. R. 34 1(h )(7) (ef f . Jul y 1, 2008 ). Absent a co mplet e r eco rd , “[ a] ny dou bt s which may ar ise fro m the inco mplet enes s o f the re co rd will be resolved agai

nst the appel

la nt.” Foutch v. O’Bryant , 9 9 I ll. 2d 3 89, 392 (1 984 ). Bec aus e t he arbi trati on a gre em en t doe s n ot appe ar to b e p art of

the rec ord, wem

us t pre su me that the a

rb i tratorNo. 1-09- 3061

6

acted withi

n the scope of h

is powers when issui

ng the award. To t he ex tent t hat pla

in tif f as serts that o ur reversal

of the ci rcuit court's arbi

trat ion order voi ded al l l ate r a rb i tra ti on proce ed i n gsan d a n y aw ard b as ed

on th em , w e rej ect thi s c on

ten ti on . O ur man da te to the ci rcu i t cou rt i n th at ord er was“ to stay ar bitr at ion p ending r eso lut ion o f the co ver age issues by the tri al court.” (Em

phasi s ad ded.) United Automobile Insurance Co. v. Wilson , No
. 1- 05
- 03 72 , slip op . a t 4 ( Mar . 1 6, 200 5) (u npublished or der unde r S upr eme Co ur t Rule 2 3) . We did no t vaca t e any po rt ion o f the ar bitr at ion p ro cee dings t hat had o ccu rr ed p rio r t o t hat po int, but ra t her or der ed t hat t he proceedin gs be stayed un

til the coverage i ssue had been resolved. A stay

does not vacate any

thin g, but it i s i nstead onl

y the “postponemen

t o r hal ting of a proceedin

g, judgm ent, or t he l

ike .” Bla ck's L aw Dictio nary 142 5 (7 th e d. 1 999 ); cf. 7-Eleven, Inc. v. Dar , 3 63 I ll. App. 3d 4 1, 45 ( 200 5) (“T he
su bst an t ive effe ct o f o ur o r de rva ca t ing t he en t ire ar bit r at io n a wa r d w as t o r es t o r e t he pa rt ies t o t he ir origi na l status i n the ca se, i.e. , as though the arbi trat ion a ward had n

ever be en en

tered .” ). Pla int iff misread s t he plain meaning o f ou r o rd er , a nd it s re liance o n t hat dec ision in sup po rt of va cat ing t he arbi trat ion a ward is mi splaced. Moreo ver, the o nl

y case that plai

ntif f ci tes in support of this argumen t is Yapejian , wh ich he ld
me rely that t he issue of cove

rage is not subj ect to arbi

trat ion. See Yapejian , 152 Il l . 2d at 54 1. Yapejian did no t ho ld t ha t ar bit r at io n p r o ce ed ing s ma y no t be gin be fo r e t he co ve r ag e is su e is det er mined. R ega rd less o f whet her t he ar bitr at or may have hea rd evidenc e o n t he co ver age issue, t he record is cl

ear that he

did not de cide wh

ethe r cove rage e xisted. Yapejian co nseq uent ly has no be ar ing on the question of

whether the award sh

ould be vacated. The re is no indica t ion in t he r eco rd befo re us t hat t he ar bitr at or exce ede d his au t hor ity, a nd therefore any argument that t he award should be vacated on that gro und fai ls. Plain tiff does not raise
o n app ea l an y ad dit io na l ba sis t o va ca t e t he aw ar d, an d w e t he r efo r e a ffirm t he o r de r s o f t he cir cu itNo. 1-09- 3061

7

court dis mi ssi ng the com

pla in t and confi

rmi ng the arbi

trat ion a ward. We n ot e that plai

ntif f as ks i n i ts brie f that i f we f

in d that t he award sh

ould be vacated, then we should order t hat the arbitrat or be replaced on remand due to all eged bias agai

nst plai ntif f. Because plaint iff has no t ra ised t his issue a s a r eas on t o va cat e t he aw ar d and we find t hat t he aw ar d sho uld be
con f i rm ed , we do n ot rea ch thi s a rgu men t. Se e Il l . S. Ct. R. 341 (h

)(7 ) (e f f . Ju l y 1, 2 008 ) (“

Poi nts not arg ue d a re wai ve d a nd sh al l not b e ra i se d i n th e re pl y br i ef , i n or al arg um en t, or on pe ti ti on f or reheari ng.”). CONCLUSION Fo r t he fo re go ing re aso ns, t he judg ment o f the circu it co ur t dismissing t he co mplaint and confi rmi ng the arbi

trat ion a ward is aff irm ed. Af fi rmed.