2021 Colorado Code
Title 13 - Courts and Court Procedure
Article 22 - Age of Competence - Arbitration - Mediation
Part 2 - Uniform Arbitration Act
§ 13-22-220. Change of Award by Arbitrator

1. On motion to an arbitrator by a party to an arbitration proceeding, the arbitrator may modify or correct an award:
   1. Upon a ground stated in section 13-22-224 (1)(a) or (1)(c);
   2. If the arbitrator has not made a final and definite award upon a claim submitted by the parties to the arbitration proceeding; or
   3. To clarify the award.

2. A motion made under subsection (1) of this section shall be made and notice shall be given to all parties within twenty days after the movant receives notice of the award.
3. A party to the arbitration proceeding shall give notice of any objection to the motion within ten days after receipt of the notice.
4. If a motion to the court is pending under section 13-22-222, 13-22-223, or 13-22-224, the court may submit the claim to the arbitrator to consider whether to modify or correct the award:
   1. Upon a ground stated in section 13-22-224 (1)(a) or (1)(c);
   2. If the arbitrator has not made a final and definite award upon a claim submitted by the parties to the arbitration proceeding; or
   3. To clarify the award.

5. An award modified or corrected pursuant to this section is subject to the provisions of sections 13-22-219 (1), 13-22-222, 13-22-223, and 13-22-224.

History. Source: L. 2004: Entire part R&RE, p. 1727, § 1, effective August 4.

This section is similar to former § 13-22-211 as it existed prior to 2004.

Annotator's note. Since § 13-22-220 is similar to § 13-22-211 as it existed prior to the 2004 repeal and reenactment of this part 2, relevant cases construing that provision have been included in the annotations to this section.

District court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to confirm arbitration award while a motion to modify or clarify the award is before the arbitrator. If the arbitrator dies or is otherwise unavailable to rule on the motion, the court must appoint a replacement arbitrator to consider the pending motions. The replacement arbitrator may act only pursuant to statute and may not redetermine the merits of the award. In re Roth, 2017 COA 45 , 395 P.3d 1226.

An application for modification of award pursuant to this section tolls the time limits in §§ 13-22-214 and 13-22-215 for seeking review by the court. Swan v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 8 P.3d 546 (Colo. App. 2000).

Amendment or modification of the award by the arbitrator is permitted only under the narrow circumstances listed in this section. Applehans v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 68 P.3d 594 (Colo. App. 2003); Rocha v. Fin. Indem. Corp., 155 P.3d 602 (Colo. App. 2006).

“Clarify”, in subsection (1)(a), does not connote a reassessment or redetermination, but rather involves making something clear or understandable. This does not mean that an arbitrator may reexamine the merits under the auspices of clarification -- merely that an arbitrator's mistake, ambiguity, or general lack of clarity may require elucidation for the parties and reviewing courts to make sense of an arbitration award. Sooper Credit Union v. Sholar Group Architects, P.C., 113 P.3d 768 (Colo. 2005).

According to former § 13-22-211 , an arbitrator may “modify or correct the award . . . for the purpose of clarifying the award”. This unambiguous phrase means that a confusing award may be clarified as required for better understanding. Nowhere does the statute impose an additional requirement that the confusion be evident or apparent strictly on the face of the award. Had the general assembly intended to limit clarification to patently ambiguous awards, it would have said so. Sooper Credit Union v. Sholar Group Architects, P.C., 113 P.3d 768 (Colo. 2005) (decided under law in effect prior to the 2004 repeal and reenactment).

Where an award is confusing because of an error, ambiguity, or general lack of clarity, an arbitrator may modify it to make it clearer and thereby effectuate the arbitrator's intent. The statute does not require that the confusion be evident on the face of the award or patently ambiguous, but an arbitrator may not redetermine the merits when clarifying an award. Sooper Credit Union v. Sholar Group Architects, P.C., 113 P.3d 768 (Colo. 2005).

Failure to object to an arbitrator's authority to issue a clarification or explanation of an award precludes raising an objection to the same on appeal Osborn v. Packard, 117 P.3d 77 (Colo. App. 2004) (decided under law in effect prior to 2004 repeal and reenactment).

If an arbitrator's rulings are ambiguous, the court should attempt to resolve the ambiguity from the record whenever possible. If that is not possible, however, the matter must be remanded to the arbitrator for issuance of a modified arbitration award that clarifies the ambiguity. The arbitrator may conduct such further proceedings as he or she deems necessary. Osborn v. Packard, 117 P.3d 77 (Colo. App. 2004) (decided under law in effect prior to 2004 repeal and reenactment).

Arbitrator acted within his or her statutory authority by correcting an award that was initially miscalculated, thus clarifying the initial award's ruling on the merits of the case. Sooper Credit Union v. Sholar Group Architects, P.C., 113 P.3d 768 (Colo. 2005).

Applied in Red Carpet Armory Realty Co. v. Golden W. Realty, 644 P.2d 93 (Colo. App. 1982).