2021 Colorado Code
Title 13 - Courts and Court Procedure
Article 22 - Age of Competence - Arbitration - Mediation
Part 2 - Uniform Arbitration Act
§ 13-22-224. Modification or Correction of Award

1. Upon motion made within ninety-one days after the movant receives notice of the award pursuant to section 13-22-219 or within ninety-one days after the movant receives notice of a modified or corrected award pursuant to section 13-22-220, the court shall modify or correct the award if:
   1. There is an evident mathematical miscalculation or an evident mistake in the description of a person, thing, or property referred to in the award;
   2. The arbitrator has made an award on a claim not submitted to the arbitrator and the award may be corrected without affecting the merits of the decision upon the claims submitted; or
   3. The award is imperfect in a matter of form not affecting the merits of the decision on the claims submitted.

2. If a motion made under subsection (1) of this section is granted, the court shall modify or correct and confirm the award as modified or corrected. Otherwise, unless a motion to vacate is pending, the court shall confirm the award.
3. A motion to modify or correct an award pursuant to this section may be joined with a motion to vacate the award.

History. Source: L. 2004: Entire part R&RE, p. 1729, § 1, effective August 4. L. 2012: IP(1) amended,(SB 12-175), ch. 208, p. 824, § 8, effective July 1.

This section is similar to former § 13-22-215 as it existed prior to 2004.

Annotator's note. Since § 13-22-224 is similar to § 13-22-215 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.

“Evident miscalculation of figures” refers only to mathematical errors committed by arbitrators which would be patently clear to a reviewing court. Court cannot use these grounds to review the merits of the award on appeal. In re Gavend, 781 P.2d 161 (Colo. App. 1989).

Such a mistake which permits a modification under subsection (1)(a) must be so gross as to evidence that the award did not actually represent the arbitrator's intent. Such a modification is only authorized if it seeks to effectuate the clearly expressed intent of the arbitrator by correcting a mathematical error without altering the arbitrator's conclusion on the merits. Foust v. Aetna Cas. & Ins. Co., 786 P.2d 450 (Colo. App. 1989).

Vacating, modifying, or correcting awards by court permissible only on the basis of the statutory grounds set forth in this section or § 13-22-214 . Foust v. Aetna Cas. & Ins. Co., 786 P.2d 450 (Colo. App. 1989); Sportsman's Quikstop I, Ltd. v. Didonato, 32 P.3d 633 (Colo. App. 2001).

An arbitrator's award is not a “final judgment” reviewable by an appellate court. Upon confirmation of the award by a district court in accordance with § 13-22-213 , and absent a timely motion to vacate, modify, or correct the award, there is no appealable issue. S. Washington Assoc. v. Flanagan, 859 P.2d 217 (Colo. 1992).

General assembly's authority to determine the jurisdiction of the court of appeals is exclusive. S. Washington Assoc. v. Flanagan, 859 P.2d 217 (Colo. 1992).

Parties to an arbitration agreement cannot define and prescribe the powers of a court of law. Where a contract term purported to allow an appellate court to conduct a substantive review of the arbitration panel's award, contrary to the controlling statutes, clause was void and unenforceable. S. Washington Assoc. v. Flanagan, 859 P.2d 217 (Colo. 1992).

Failure to bring a motion to vacate, modify, or correct the arbitration award within the prescribed time limit prevents the defendant from raising the contractual policy limits as a defense in a confirmation proceeding held after expiration of the statutory time limit. Kutch v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 960 P.2d 93 (Colo. 1998).

Since defendant failed to follow prescribed time limit in motion to vacate, modify, or correct the arbitration award, he is barred from presenting the substantive defenses to plaintiff's motion. Sportsman's Quikstop I, Ltd. v. Didonato, 32 P.3d 633 (Colo. App. 2001).

Where there is no evidence that the parties disagreed over policy limits, the issue of policy limits was not arbitrable. Court could modify arbitration award to reduce the award to the policy limits. Rocha v. Fin. Indem. Corp., 155 P.3d 602 (Colo. App. 2006).

However, an application to arbitrator pursuant to § 13-22-211 to modify award tolls the 30-day time limit under this section for seeking judicial review. Swan v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 8 P.3d 546 (Colo. App. 2000).

Trial court's award of prejudgment interest upon confirmation of the arbitration award is an impermissible modification of the arbitration award where such interest was not requested during the arbitration. Duncan v. Nat'l Home Ins. Co., 36 P.3d 191 (Colo. App. 2001).

Applied in Atencio v. Mid-Century Ins. Co., 619 P.2d 784 (Colo. App. 1980); Judd Constr. Co. v. Evans Joint Venture, 642 P.2d 922 (Colo. 1982).