§ 11.11 Review of Judgment On Arbitration Award

• Jurisdiction: Washington

§11.11 REVIEW OF JUDGMENT ON ARBITRATION AWARD

Private arbitration in Washington is governed exclusively by statute. Broom v. Morgan Stanley DWInc., 169 Wn.2d 231, 236, 236 P.3d 182 (2010); see RCW 7.04A.030. A dispute submitted to arbitration is decided by the arbitrator's issuance of an award, of which the arbitrator must make a record. RCW 7.04A.190(1). The award is reviewable on limited grounds by the superior court, which has authority to vacate, modify, or correct the award based on any of the grounds specified by statute. See RCW 7.04A.230 (vacating award); RCW 7.04A.240 (modification or correction of award). These decisions are reviewable by an appellate court under a de novo standard of review. See Fidelity Fed. Bank, FSB v. Durga Ma Corp.,386 F.3d 1306, 1311 (9th Cir. 2004).

One of the statutory grounds for vacating an award is that the arbitrator "exceeded the arbitrator's powers." RCW 7.04A.230(d). The Washington Supreme Court has repeatedly interpreted this ground as providing for vacation of an award based on an error of law appearing on the face of the award. See Broom, 169 Wn.2d at 237 (citing Davidson v. Hensen,135 Wn.2d 112, 118, 954 P.2d 1327 (1998), and Boyd v. Davis,127 Wn.2d 256, 263, 897 P.2d 1239 (1995)); see also Cummings v. Budget Tank Removal & Envtl. Servs., LLC, 163 Wn. App. 379, 388, 260 P.3d 220 (2011). Instances when facial legal error justified vacation or refusal to enforce the award include the following:

• arbitrator dismissed claims under a statute of limitations when none applied, Broom, 169 Wn.2d at 236;
• arbitrator rendered an internally inconsistent award that indicated the burden of proof had been reversed, Tolson v. Allstate Ins. Co., 108 Wn.App...