Court Opinion

ID: 9745784
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 13:31:35.44487+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:04.570120
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON REHEARING
In our original opinion, we denied Angell's request for remand to the arbitrator to obtain specific determinations regarding its award because Angell filed a motion to vacate under IND.CODE § 34-4-2-13, instead of a motion for clarification under IND. CODE $ 34-4-2-10. On rehearing, Angell presents that it did file a clarification motion under I.C. § 34-4-2-10 with the trial court and with the arbitrator. Angell refers us to its "APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO REMAND TO THE ARBITRATOR TO CORRECT AND/OR CLARIFY ARBITRATION AWARD." Record at 214. This "§ 10 motion" was filed with the trial court and a copy sent to the American Arbitration Association. However, the § 10 motion did not argue that the arbitrator failed to enter specific determinations as to all of the questions submitted to the arbitrator pursuant to IND.CODE § 34-4-2-9. Instead, its § 10 motion alleged that the arbitrator ignored the limits in IND.CODE § 82-8-3-9 so that its award was an evident misapplication and miscalculation of figures. Thus, the § 10 motion sought clarification and recalculation consistent with I.C. § 32-8-3-9. |
On appeal, Angell complained that the award was silent as to the amount of set-off and the pro rata share of the unpaid contract price. So, Angell relied upon I.C. § 34-4-2-9 for relief. The § 10 motion did not request the arbitrator to clarify either of these amounts. Thus, as we held in our original opinion, Angell did not file a § 10 motion presenting this issue to the arbitrator as was the proper procedure.
Angell complains that it was thwarted from filing a § 10 motion because the trial court prematurely affirmed the arbitrator's award by confirming it before the 90-day period expired under ILC. § 34-4-2-12. However, its filing of the § 10 motion raising other issues belies its contention that it was misguided.
Rehearing granted, judgment affirmed.