Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


LANDMARK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v R. LOCKWOOD CONSTRUCTION, INC. and HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants-Appellants.

UNPUBLISHED October 2, 2008

No. 280031 Oakland Circuit Court LC No. 2006-075677-CK

LANDMARK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v R. LOCKWOOD CONSTRUCTION, INC. and HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants-Appellees.  No. 281181 Oakland Circuit Court LC No. 2006-075677-CK

Before: O'Connell, P.J., and Smolenski and Gleicher, JJ. PER CURIAM. In Docket No. 280031, defendant R. Lockwood Construction, Inc. ("Lockwood"), appeals as of right from a circuit court order confirming an arbitration award. In Docket No. 281181, plaintiff appeals as of right from the trail court's order denying its motion for attorney fees. We affirm both orders. These appeals have been decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E). Lockwood hired plaintiff to perform work on a construction project. It later terminated the contract, which it was permitted to do under the terms of the contract. Plaintiff filed a construction lien against the property for over $440,000. Defendant disputed the amount that plaintiff claimed was owed and asserted a right to compensation to correct or complete the work left on plaintiff's contract. The contract dispute was submitted to arbitration. The arbitrator -1-


found that both parties were entitled to damages on their respective claims and entered a net award in plaintiff's favor for $279,432.50. In the meantime, defendant Hartford Fire Insurance Company issued a lien discharge bond covering plaintiff's claim. Plaintiff filed this action to enforce the bond and to confirm the arbitration award. The trial court denied Lockwood's motion to vacate the award. It later denied plaintiff's request for attorney fees under the Construction Lien Act (CLA), MCL 570.1101 et seq. "We review de novo a trial court's decision to enforce, vacate, or modify a statutory arbitration award." Tokar v Albery, 258 Mich App 350, 352; 671 NW2d 139 (2003). The court shall vacate an award on motion of a party if the arbitrator exceeded his powers. MCR 3.602(J)(2)(c). An arbitrator exceeds his powers when he acts beyond the material terms of the contract from which his authority is derived, or in contravention of controlling principles of law. Dohanyos v Detrex Corp (After Remand), 217 Mich App 171, 176; 550 NW2d 608 (1996). An arbitration award should not be vacated simply because there has been an error of law. NuVision v Dunscombe, 163 Mich App 674, 684; 415 NW2d 234 (1987). To be reviewable, the legal error must have been "`so material or substantial as to have governed the award, and but for which the award would have been substantially otherwise.'" Rembert v Ryan's Family Steak Houses, Inc, 235 Mich App 118, 165; 596 NW2d 208 (1999), quoting DAIIE v Gavin, 416 Mich 407, 443; 331 NW2d 418 (1982). In addition, the error must appear on the face of the award or in the reasons for the decision, which are substantially a part of the award. Dohanyos, supra at 176; Smith v Motorland Ins Co, 135 Mich App 33, 40

Download LANDMARK CONSTRUCTION CO INC V R LOCKWOOD CONSTRUCTION INC.pdf

Michigan Law