Opinion ID: 2077733
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Modification of Award

Text: On appeal, Purvis also challenged the power of the arbitrator to modify his initial award, citing the doctrine of functus officio. See Colonial Penn Insurance Co. v. Omaha Indemnity Co., 943 F.2d 327, 331 (3d Cir.1991) (holding that once an arbitration panel renders a decision regarding the issues submitted, it becomes functus officio and lacks any power to reexamine that decision). As a preliminary matter, we note that the AAA rules do not bar arbitrators from their routine practice of modifying arbitration awards. Moreover, even if we were to apply the common law doctrine of functus officio, as suggested by Purvis, it would not bar the arbitrator's issuance of the modified and supplemental awards in this case. As the Third Circuit recognized in Colonial Penn, the common law functus officio doctrine contains its own limitations. Id. at 332. For instance, the doctrine does not bar an arbitrator from modifying an award where the award does not adjudicate an issue which has been submitted,    [or] [w]here the award, although seemingly complete, leaves doubt whether the submission has been fully executed. Id. (quoting La Vale Plaza, Inc. v. R.S. Noonan, Inc., 378 F.2d 569, 573 (3d Cir.1967)). In the instant case, the arbitrator's initial award directed Purvis to pay, [p]er the subcontract, the fees and expenses of the [AAA] and the fees and expenses of the arbitrator. The award further stated, This award is in full settlement of all claims and counterclaims submitted to this arbitration. Although seemingly complete on its face, the award omitted any mention of attorney's fees, a fact that left doubt, at least in ASC's estimation, over whether the arbitrator's function had been fully executed. This doubt was expressed in Billings's first letter to the AAA in which he questioned whether the arbitrator inadvertently failed to address payment of attorneys [sic] fees. The arbitrator referred explicitly to this letter, as well as to subsequent letters of the parties' counsel, in setting out the basis for the modified award: Joseph G. Billings    having requested a modification by two letters dated December 23, 1998, and Christine K. Ahern and Robert M. Duffy    having responded by letters dated December 23 and 29, 1998, respectively, [I, the undersigned arbitrator,] do hereby DECIDE and MODIFY my award. Because the issue of whether the subcontract entitled the prevailing party to an award of attorney's fees was properly before the arbitrator and because the arbitrator failed to adjudicate that issue in the initialaward, we are of the opinion that the functus officio doctrine did not bar the arbitrator from modifying, and later supplementing, the award.