EXPRESSWAY V. PRECISION

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JULY TERM, 2004 THE EXPRESSWAY COMPANIES, INC., ** ** Appellant, vs. ** CASE NO. 3D03-1317 ** PRECISION DESIGN, INC., ** Appellee. ** LOWER TRIBUNAL NOS. 02-18699 & 02-20504 Opinion filed July 14, 2004. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Marc Schumacher, Judge. Jorden Burt and Sonia Escobio O Donnell and Enrique D. Arana, for appellant. Levey, Airan, Brownstein, Shevin, Friedman, Roen & Kelso, and John R. Kelso, for appellee. Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and GODERICH, JJ., and DELL, John W., Senior Judge. GODERICH, Judge. The Expressway Companies, Inc. [Expressway] appeals from an amended final [Precision] judgment Petition Expressway s to Application granting Precision Design, Inc. s Confirm Arbitration Award; denying to Vacate Arbitration granting pre-award interest to Precision. Award; and We affirm in part and reverse in part. Expressway and Precision entered into an Abbreviated Form of Agreement Between Owner and Contractor which provided for the resolution of claims and disputes by arbitration. After the construction project was terminated, Precision filed a Demand for Arbitration [Demand] seeking $449,000, and later amended the Demand seeking $849,926. Expressway filed a Motion to Dismiss the Demand [Motion to Dismiss] raising several arguments. Expressway also filed an answer to the Demand and raised a counterclaim alleging that it had overpaid Precision. The arbitrator heard the matter over a six-day period and thereafter, entered its arbitration award [Award]. The Award in part denied Expressway s Motion to Dismiss; awarded post-award interest, administrative fees and expenses, and $716,719 in damages to Precision; and denied Precision s request for preaward interest. Following entry of the Award, Expressway filed an Application to Vacate Arbitration Award [Application to Vacate] 2 and Precision filed a [Petition to Confirm]. Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award In the Petition to Confirm, Precision also requested that the trial court grant it pre-award interest. Following a hearing, the trial court entered an amended final judgment granting Precision s Petition to Confirm; dismissing Expressway s Application to Vacate; and awarding preaward interest to Precision. This appeal followed. Expressway raises numerous points on appeal, but only one merits discussion. Expressway contends that the trial court erred by modifying the Award by granting pre-award interest to Precision. We agree. As previously noted, Precision filed a motion to confirm the arbitration award, not a motion to modify the arbitration award. If a trial court rules to confirm the arbitration award, it must enter a judgment confirming the arbitration award in its entirety. See Andrew H. Warner, Inc. v. Siga, Inc., 690 So. 2d 626, 628 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)(holding that [i]n confirming an arbitration award, the trial court must enter a judgment in conformity with the arbitration award. ). In the instant case, the Award specifically denied preaward interest to Precision. As such, the trial court s amended final judgment granting pre-award interest to Precision was not in conformity with the Award. Therefore, the portion of the 3 amended final judgment awarding pre-award interest to Precision must be reversed. Assuming that Precision had filed a motion to modify the award pursuant to section 682.14, Florida Statutes (2003),1 the facts do not support such a modification. Precision argues that the trial court was authorized to modify the Award to add preaward interest because the arbitrator made a conscious decision to not bother completing the task [of interest] because it [was] too arduous. 1 calculating pre-award Precision also argues Section 682.14 provides as follows: Modification or correction of award (1) Upon application made within 90 days after delivery of a copy of the award to the applicant, the court shall modify or correct the award when: (a) There is an evident miscalculation of figures or an evident mistake in the description of any person, thing or property referred to in the award. (b) The arbitrators or umpire have awarded upon a matter not submitted to them or him or her and the award may be corrected without affecting the merits of the decision upon the issues submitted. (c) The award is imperfect as a matter of form, not affecting the merits of the controversy. (2) If the application is granted, the court shall modify and correct the award so as to effect its intent and shall confirm the award as so modified and corrected. Otherwise, the court shall confirm the award as made. (3) An application to modify or correct an award may be joined in the alternative with an application to vacate the award. 4 that the trial court correctly granted pre-award interest because it is entitled to such interest pursuant to Argonaut Insurance Co. v. May Plumbing Co., 474 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 1985). First, in reviewing the Award, it is clear that the arbitrator s decision to deny pre-award interest was not because the arbitrator believed that the task of calculating the preaward interest was too arduous. Precision s request for pre-award Rather, the arbitrator denied interest after considering what it believed to be the law on pre-award interest and the facts of the case. Therefore, because a trial court is not empowered to set aside arbitration awards for mere errors of judgment as to law or facts, even if Precision had filed a motion to modify the granted the motion. Award, the trial court could not have Dasso v. Fernandez, 831 So. 2d 714, 716 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002), review denied, 845 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 2003); see Verzura Constr., Inc. v. Surfside Ocean, Inc., 708 So. 2d 994, 996 (Fla. arbitration 3d panels DCA 1998)(holding cannot be set that aside for awards mere made by errors of judgment either as to the law or as to the facts ); Goldberger v. Hofco, Inc., 422 So. 2d 898, 900 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)(holding that where an arbitration award denies pre-award interest, [a]bsent justification to vacate or modify the award, the trial court was without authority to alter the terms. ). 5 Finally, Precision s reliance on Argonaut is misplaced. the Fourth District held in Preserve Estates v. As Bryant Contracting Corp., 657 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), [t]he fact that Argonaut Ins. Co. v. May Plumbing Co., 474 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 1985), requires a court to add prejudgment interest to a determination of liquidated damages by a jury or judge does not overcome the provisions of sections 682.13 and 682.14, Florida Statutes (1993). Those statutes allow a court to vacate or modify a final arbitration award in very limited circumstances, none of which apply here; the permitted grounds do not include legal error by the arbitrator. Preserve Estates, 657 So. 2d at 60 (emphasis in original); see also § 682.13(e), Fla. Stat. (2003)( But the fact that the relief was such that it could not or would not be granted by a court of law or equity is not ground for vacating or refusing to confirm the award. ). Accordingly, we reverse the portion of the amended final judgment awarding pre-award interest to Precision and affirm the remaining portions of the amended final judgment. Affirmed in part and reversed in part. 6

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.