Opinion ID: 846272
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: common-law arbitration

Text: When the parties' agreement to arbitrate does not comply with the requirements of MCL 600.5001, the parties are said to have agreed to a common-law arbitration. Frolich, supra at 429, 210 N.W. 488. What characterizes common-law arbitration is its unilateral revocation rule. 4 Am. Jur. 2d, Alternative Dispute Resolution, § 94, p. 148. This rule allows one party to terminate arbitration at any time before the arbitrator renders an award. Although this Court first used the term common law arbitration as long ago as 1852, [1] it was not until 1890 that we specifically stated: It is conceded that an agreement to submit all matters in controversy between parties to arbitration, and thus oust courts of their jurisdiction, is void, and may be repudiated by either party at any time before award is made. [ Chippewa Lumber Co. v. Phenix Ins. Co., 80 Mich. 116, 120, 44 N.W. 1055 (1890) (emphasis deleted).] [2] The Chippewa Court held that, when a common-law arbitration agreement exists solely as a condition precedent to filing suit, it does not divest the courts of jurisdiction. Therefore, it is valid and will be enforced. Id. at 121-122, 44 N.W. 1055, citing Stephenson v. Piscataqua Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 54 Me. 55 (1866). [3] This Court has not changed the unilateral revocation rule since it decided Chippewa in 1890.