Opinion ID: 2548987
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: did the district court err in staying the confirmation of the arbitration award pending determination of the offset amount?

Text: Upon application of a party, the court shall confirm an arbitrator's award, unless within the time limits grounds are urged for vacating, modifying, or correcting the award pursuant to I.C. §§ 7-912 and 7-913. I.C. § 7-911. The district court's review of an arbitrator's award is strictly limited to determine if any of the factors outlined in the Uniform Arbitration Act are present. Landmark, 126 Idaho at 76, 878 P.2d at 775. Pursuant to I.C. § 7-912 an arbitrator's award may be vacated for the following reasons: (1) The award was procured by corruption, fraud or other undue means; (2) There was evident partiality by an arbitrator appointed as a neutral, or corruption in any of the arbitrators, or misconduct prejudicing the rights of any party; (3) The arbitrators exceeded their powers; (4) The arbitrators refused to postpone the hearing upon sufficient cause being shown therefor or refused to hear evidence material to the controversy or otherwise so conducted the hearing, contrary to the provisions of section 7-905, Idaho Code, as to prejudice substantially the rights of a party; or (5) There was no arbitration agreement and the issue was not adversely determined in proceedings under section 7-902, Idaho Code, and the party did not participate in the arbitration hearing without raising the objection. Reichert argues the arbitrator exceeded his powers by considering the worker's compensation claim when he issued the modified award. This Court has construed the phrase of `exceeded his powers' in § 7-912(a)(3) `to mean that the arbitrator considered an issue not submitted to him by the parties, or exceeded the bounds of the contract between the parties.' Chicoine, 127 Idaho at 227, 899 P.2d at 440 (citation omitted). In this case, the parties stipulated that the arbitrator would not consider any potential worker's compensation claims or issues of subrogation. In the February 16, 2001 award the arbitrator did not take into consideration either the worker's compensation claims or issues of subrogation. The arbitrator simply awarded the maximum prejudgment interest amount. When the arbitrator modified the award, he did take into consideration subrogation rights. He stated, [T]he award of prejudgment interest should be limited to the interest calculated on the balance owed by [American] to [Reichert] after any offsets which [American] may be entitled to deduct from the award. By modifying his award the arbitrator took into consideration that American may be entitled to subrogation rights from the worker's compensation claim and therefore exceeded the bounds of the contract between the parties. We vacate the June 20, 2001 award and order the February 16, 2001 award reinstated. This matter is remanded for the district court to confirm the February 16, 2001 arbitrator's award. The confirmed award will not become a final judgment until the remaining claims are resolved.