Court Opinion

ID: 9844603
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:05:22.471749+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:38.879527
License: Public Domain

BISTLINE, Justice,
with whom SILAK, Justice, joins, dissenting.
The Court’s opinion states that “[ajlthough I.C. § 7-909 empowers the court to remand an award, that section only allows for modification or correction ‘upon the grounds stated in paragraphs (1) and (3) of subdivision (a) of section 7-913, Idaho Code.’ ” That quotation by the majority omits the additional language of I.C. § 7-909 which provides that the court may also remand “for the purpose of clarifying the award.”
If that additional language is not read to provide a basis apart from the modification or correction of I.C. § 913(a)(1) and (3), then it is rendered entirely superfluous. I see no reason to adopt such a disfavored construction and would affirm the district court’s order remanding the matter to the arbitrator for, what turned out to be, a much-needed seventeen-thousand-dollar clarification. See University of Alaska v. Modern Constr., Inc., 522 P.2d 1132, 1136 (Alaska 1974) (identical provision adopted from Uniform Arbitration Act “was intended to empower the court to order clarification”).