Colo. Rev. Stat. » Title 13
Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-22-211 (2026)

Appointment of arbitrator - service as a neutral arbitrator

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CO-LEGleg.colorado.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) If the parties to an agreement to arbitrate agree on a method for appointing an arbitrator, the method shall be followed unless the method fails. If the parties have not agreed on a method, or the agreed method fails, or an appointed arbitrator fails to act or is unable to act and a successor has not been appointed, the court, on the motion of a party to the arbitration proceeding, shall appoint the arbitrator. An arbitrator appointed pursuant to this subsection (1) shall have all the powers of an arbitrator designated in an agreement to arbitrate or appointed pursuant to an agreed method.

(2) An individual who has a known, direct, and material interest in the outcome of the arbitration proceeding or a known, existing, and substantial relationship with a party may not serve as an arbitrator if the agreement requires the arbitrator to be neutral.

Source: L. 2004: Entire part R&RE, p. 1722, § 1, effective August 4.

Editor's note: This section is similar to former § 13-22-205 as it existed prior to 2004.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 1982–2017 · leading case: Sooper Credit Union v. Sholar Grp. Architects, P.C., 113 P.3d 768 (Colo. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Sooper Credit Union v. Sholar Grp. Architects, P.C., 113 P.3d 768 (Colo. 2005). · cites it 21× “Whether the court of appeals erred in its interpretation of C.R.S. § 13-22-211 by adding a requirement that an ambiguity be evident in the face of the initial award.”
In Re the Marriage of Roth, 2017 COA 45 (Colo. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “¶ 33 The language of the CUAA is mandatory on this issue: if an arbitrator ceases or is unable to act, a replacement arbitrator “shall be appointed” to continue the proceedings and resolve the controversy.”
Owners Ins. Co. v. Dakota Station II Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 444 P.3d 784 (Colo. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 6× “Because the parties' stipulation here did not specify whether the appraisers were to be treated as arbitrators, and if so, whether they were to be held to the statutory standard for impartial arbitrators, the UAA sections regarding disclosures to be made by impartial arbitrators…”
Coors Brewing Co. v. Cabo, 114 P.3d 60 (Colo. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “154, § 13-22-205 at 574 (now recodified with amendments as the Colorado Revised Uniform Arbitration Act of 2004 (CRUAA), § 13-22-211, C.R.S.2004), an arbitrator was appointed to resolve the dispute.”
Applehans v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 68 P.3d 594 (Colo. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 3× “The issue here is whether the reasons stated in § 13-22-211 provide the only grounds upon which an arbitrator may modify the award.”
Osborn v. Packard, 117 P.3d 77 (Colo. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “154, § 13-22-211 at 575 (now recodified with amendments as § 13-22-220, C.”
Am. Numismatic Ass'n v. Cipoletti, 254 P.3d 1169 (Colo. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 3× “In that case, the division held merely that a timely motion for modification of an award under former section 13-22-211, ch. 154, sec. 1, § 13-22-211, 1975 Colo.”
Swan v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co., 8 P.3d 546 (Colo. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “1998), plaintiff asserts that American Family's application to the arbitrators to modify their award pursuant to § 13-22-211, C.R.9$.1999, did not toll the time limits in §§ 18-22-214 and 18-22-215.”
Sholar Grp. Architects, P.C. v. Sooper Credit Union, 97 P.3d 258 (Colo. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 6× “In their motions to correct, both parties cited pertinent Colorado statutes, and the trial court submitted defendant’s motion to the arbitrator for consideration in accordance with § 13-22-211, C.”
Red Carpet Armory Realty Co. v. Golden West Realty, 644 P.2d 93 (Colo. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 2× “Because Red Carpet’s contention that there were no findings of fact by the arbitration panel explaining its decision was not raised below, and because it did not apply for clarification of the arbitrators’ award pursuant to § 13-22-211, C.R.S.1973 (1981 Cum.Supp.), we do not…”
Rocha v. Fin. Indem. Corp., 155 P.3d 602 (Colo. Ct. App. 2006). “154, § 13-22-211 at 575, before repeal and reenactment in 2004), which provides, in pertinent part: "On motion to an arbitrator by a party to an arbitration proceeding, the arbitrator may modify or correct an award .”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-22-211(1) — 1 case
In Re the Marriage of Roth, 2017 COA 45 (Colo. Ct. App. 2017). “¶ 33 The language of the CUAA is mandatory on this issue: if an arbitrator ceases or is unable to act, a replacement arbitrator “shall be appointed” to continue the proceedings and resolve the controversy.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-22-211(2) — 1 case
Owners Ins. Co. v. Dakota Station II Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 444 P.3d 784 (Colo. Ct. App. 2017). “Because the parties' stipulation here did not specify whether the appraisers were to be treated as arbitrators, and if so, whether they were to be held to the statutory standard for impartial arbitrators, the UAA sections regarding disclosures to be made by impartial arbitrators…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.