Opinion ID: 2337607
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Statutory Interest

Text: ¶ 19 Elcon argues entitlement to statutory interest on the arbitrator's award under RCW 39.76.011, which requires public bodies to pay interest whenever they fail to make timely payment on amounts due on written contracts for public works. Payment is considered untimely if it is not made within 30 days of receipt of a properly completed invoice or receipt of goods or services. RCW 39.76.011(2)(a). Rather than requesting statutory interest at arbitration, Elcon requested the interest in a postaward motion. CP at 404-05. The arbitrator denied the motion, determining he lacked postfinal award jurisdiction to address the issue pursuant to the arbitration statutes. CP at 387. The trial court determined it did not have jurisdiction to award interest on the arbitrator's award. CP at 1019. We agree. ¶ 20 In Westmark Properties, the Court of Appeals held that adding prejudgment interest to an arbitration award was error on the part of the trial court: [The trial court] has no basis for determining whether the amount awarded met the test for [prejudgment] interest; this was part of the merits of the controversy, forbidden territory for a court. Westmark Props., Inc. v. McGuire, 53 Wash.App. 400, 404, 766 P.2d 1146 (1989) (quoting Sch. Dist. 5 Snohomish County v. Sage, 13 Wash. 352, 43 P. 341 (1896)). Similarly, in Fluor Daniel, Inc., we noted that the majority of courts considering this issue have found that adding prejudgment interest is an inappropriate modification of the arbitrator's award. In this case, the trial court appropriately limited its review. Dep't of Corr. v. Fluor Daniel, Inc., 160 Wash.2d 786, 792, 161 P.3d 372 (2007). Elcon may not recover statutory interest on the arbitrator's award through a postaward motion. [9]