Arbitrator’s Authority to Reconsider Award
In Smola v. Greenleaf Orthopedic Assoc., Steven Smola (“Smola”) brought an action in which he alleged a personal injury claim against Greenleaf Orthopedic Associates, S.C. (“Greenleaf”); BQMCC, LLC (“BQMCC”); and Tomassetti Landscaping, Inc. (“Tomassetti”). Smola alleged that he slipped and fell on black ice in a parking lot owned and maintained by Greenleaf, BQMCC, and Tomassetti, which caused injury to his shoulder. Parties agreed to submit their dispute to binding arbitration. The arbitrator entered the Award against Smola. Arbitrator signed the award and delivered it to the parties. Smola’s attorney contacted the arbitrator to reconsider. A motion to reconsider and a reply were sent, but Smola never responded to the reply. On September 1, 2011, the order was entered that the arbitration decision was final and binding.
The court reviewed whether the arbitrator was allowed to reconsider the award he had previously entered, and the arbitration award was final and binding. Smola’s contention rested on his argument that the arbitrator was entertaining his motion to reconsider at the time the court entered its order. The parties argue on whether the arbitrator could entertain a motion to reconsider after issuing the award.
The court reviewed the Act and prior case law, which revealed little guidance regarding the procedural availability of motions to reconsider before an arbitrator, or whether an arbitration award becomes final once issued. With respect to the Act, Section 8(a) provides that an award shall be in writing and signed by the arbitrator and that a copy of the award should be delivered to the parties personally, by registered mail, or as provided in the parties’ agreement. 710 ILCS 5/8(a) (West 2010). Section 8(b) provides that an arbitrator shall make an award within the time frame specified by the agreement, “or, if not so fixed, within such time as the court orders on application of a party.” 710 ILCS 5/8(b) (West 2010). Section 9 of the Act provides that, within 20 days of delivery of the award, a party may file an application with the arbitrator to modify or correct the award or to clarify the award. 710 ILCS 5/9 (West 2010). However, the Act does not address whether a party may move for an arbitrator to reconsider his decision.
Accordingly, the court held that when the parties’ agreement is silent with respect to an arbitrator’s authority to entertain a motion to reconsider, the decision of whether such a motion may be entertained pursuant to the parties’ agreement should be left to the arbitrator in the first instance. In other words, if the parties’ agreement to arbitrate does not express the circumstances under which an award would become final, the arbitrator retains the authority to reconsider the award before the trial court enters a judgment confirming the award. The court does not believe that an arbitrator is prohibited from entertaining a motion to reconsider an award before the trial court confirms and enters judgment on the award, merely because the Act is silent regarding this matter. The better rule is to allow parties to express the terms of finality and, if the parties fail to do so, allow the arbitrator to decide in the first instance whether considering the motion would be consistent with the parties’ agreement.
The court held that since the Act is silent with respect to whether an arbitrator may reconsider the merits of an award before the award becomes final, an arbitrator has the authority to entertain such a motion, so long as the parties’ agreement does not prohibit the arbitrator from doing so. Absent clear language indicating finality, the arbitrator is in the best position to determine when the award becomes final, which necessarily involves construing the parties’ agreement. In this case, the agreement was silent as to finality, and the arbitrator’s conduct reflected that he would review Smola’s motion to reconsider and rule upon it in due course.
Smola v. Greenleaf Orthopedic Assoc., 982 N.E.2d 936 (Ill.App. 2nd Dist. 2012).
