(1) Upon motion to the court by a party to an arbitration proceeding, the court shall vacate an award made in the arbitration proceeding if the court finds that:
(a) The award was procured by corruption, fraud, or other undue means;
(b) There was:
(I) Evident partiality by an arbitrator appointed as a neutral arbitrator;
(II) Corruption by an arbitrator; or
(III) Misconduct by an arbitrator prejudicing the rights of a party to the arbitration proceeding;
(c) An arbitrator refused to postpone the hearing upon showing of sufficient cause for postponement, refused to consider evidence material to the controversy, or otherwise conducted the hearing contrary to section 13-22-215, so as to prejudice substantially the rights of a party to the arbitration proceeding;
(d) An arbitrator exceeded the arbitrator's powers;
(e) There was no agreement to arbitrate, unless the person participated in the arbitration proceeding without raising the objection under section 13-22-215 (3) not later than the beginning of the arbitration hearing; or
(f) The arbitration was conducted without proper notice of the initiation of an arbitration as required in section 13-22-209 so as to substantially prejudice the rights of a party to the arbitration proceeding.
(1.5) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, 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 grounds for vacating or refusing to confirm the award.
(2) A motion made under this section shall be filed 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, unless the movant alleges that the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or other undue means, in which case the motion must be made within ninety-one days after either the ground is known or by the exercise of reasonable care should have been known by the movant.
(3) If the court vacates an award on a ground other than that set forth in paragraph (e) of subsection (1) of this section, it may order a rehearing. If the award is vacated on a ground stated in paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1) of this section, the rehearing shall be held before a new arbitrator. If the award is vacated on a ground stated in paragraph (c), (d), or (f) of subsection (1) of this section, the rehearing may be held before the arbitrator who made the award or the arbitrator's successor. The arbitrator must render the decision in the rehearing within the same time as that provided in section 13-22-219 (2) for an award.
(4) If the court denies a motion to vacate an award, it shall confirm the award unless a motion to modify or correct the award is pending.
Source: L. 2004: Entire part R&RE, p. 1728, § 1, effective August 4. L. 2005: (1.5) added, p. 764, § 21, effective June 1. L. 2012: (2) amended, (SB 12-175), ch. 208, p. 824, § 7, effective July 1.
Editor's note: This section is similar to former § 13-22-214 as it existed prior to 2004.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
31
cases (
11 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case:
Ins. v. Dakota Station II, 2021 COA 114, 499 P.3d 1069.
Ins. v. Dakota Station II, 2021 COA 114, 499 P.3d 1069.
· cites it 3× “¶6 Owners later filed a motion to vacate the appraisal award under section 13-22-223, C.R.S. 2020, of the Colorado Uniform Arbitration Act (CUAA), alleging, among other things, that Haber wasn’t impartial, as required by the policy.”
In re the Marriage of Roth, 2017 COA 45, 395 P.3d 1226.
· cites it 7× “2016, or the award is vacated by the court pursuant to section 13-22-223, C.R.S. 2016. See Applehans v.”
Treadwell v. Vill. Homes of Colorado, Inc., 222 P.3d 398 (Colo. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 12× “Discussion The majority opines that: Judicial deference to arbitrators is so great that "judicial review" may be something of a "misnomer" and judicial review of an arbitration award under section 13-22-223(1), C.R.S.2009, involves only "specific instances of outrageous…”
Coors Brewing Co. v. Cabo, 114 P.3d 60 (Colo. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 5× “154, § 13-22-214(l)(a) at 576 (now recodified with amendments as § 13-22-223(1), C.R.S.2004). Defendants contend that an arbitrator’s “manifest disregard of the law” should operate as an implied ground for vacating an award under former § 13-22-214(l)(a)(III), which permits…”
Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Summit Park Townhome Ass'n, 100 F. Supp. 3d 1099 (D. Colo. 2015).
· cites it 4× “# 10]; Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-22-223 . Auto-Owners is, of course, correct with regard to the appraisers’ factual determinations regarding the issues over which the policy gives them purview — the “value of the property or the amount of loss” — including the amount of damage, if…”
BFN-GREELEY, LLC v. Adair Grp., Inc., 141 P.3d 937 (Colo. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 4× “154, § 13 — 22—214(l)(a)(I) at 576 (now re-codified with amendments as § 13-22-223(l)(a), C.R.S.2005). The plain meaning of “procured by” is a causal connection between the improper conduct and the award.”
Meister v. Stout, 2015 COA 60, 353 P.3d 916.
· cites it 3× “Under the CUAA, a court may decline to confirm an arbitration award only on the limited statutory grounds set forth in section 13-22-223, C.R.S.2014. See Levy, 293 P.”
Owners Ins. Co. v. Dakota Station II Condo. Ass'n, 444 P.3d 784 (Colo. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 5× “¶ 6 Owners then filed a petition to vacate the appraisal award under section 13-22-223, C.R.S. 2016, of the Colorado Uniform Arbitration Act (CUAA).”
Osborn v. Packard, 117 P.3d 77 (Colo. Ct. App. 2004).
“§§ 13-22-223(2), 13-22-224(1), C.R.S.2004 (providing ninety days).”
In re the Marriage of Dorsey, 2014 COA 19, 342 P.3d 491.
· cites it 3× “Wife then moved to vacate the award, under section 13-22-223(1)(d), C.R.S.2013, contending that the arbitrator exceeded her authority by interpreting the separation agreement.”
Rocha v. Fin. Indem. Corp., 155 P.3d 602 (Colo. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 2× “Though FIC did not file a motion in the district court to modify the award pursuant to and in accordance with the time limit set forth in § 13-22-223, see Kutch, supra, its failure to do so is excused by the fact the arbitration panel issued a modified award reducing the award…”
Est. of Guido v. Exempla, Inc., 2012 COA 48, 292 P.3d 996.
· cites it 2× “| After a party to an arbitration proceeding receives notice of an award, the party may make a motion to the court for an order confirming the award at which time the court shall issue a confirming order unless the award is modified or corrected pursuant to section 13-22-220 or…”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-22-223(1): 6 cases
Coors Brewing Co. v. Cabo, 114 P.3d 60 (Colo. Ct. App. 2004).
“154, § 13-22-214(l)(a) at 576 (now recodified with amendments as § 13-22-223(1), C.R.S.2004). Defendants contend that an arbitrator’s “manifest disregard of the law” should operate as an implied ground for vacating an award under former § 13-22-214(l)(a)(III), which permits…”
Treadwell v. Vill. Homes of Colorado, Inc., 222 P.3d 398 (Colo. Ct. App. 2009).
“Discussion The majority opines that: Judicial deference to arbitrators is so great that "judicial review" may be something of a "misnomer" and judicial review of an arbitration award under section 13-22-223(1), C.R.S.2009, involves only "specific instances of outrageous…”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-22-223(1)(a): 1 case
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-22-223(1)(b)(III): 1 case
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-22-223(1)(c): 3 cases
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-22-223(1)(d): 8 cases
Treadwell v. Vill. Homes of Colorado, Inc., 222 P.3d 398 (Colo. Ct. App. 2009).
“Discussion The majority opines that: Judicial deference to arbitrators is so great that "judicial review" may be something of a "misnomer" and judicial review of an arbitration award under section 13-22-223(1), C.R.S.2009, involves only "specific instances of outrageous…”
In re the Marriage of Dorsey, 2014 COA 19, 342 P.3d 491.
“Wife then moved to vacate the award, under section 13-22-223(1)(d), C.R.S.2013, contending that the arbitrator exceeded her authority by interpreting the separation agreement.”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-22-223(1)(e): 2 cases
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-22-223(2): 4 cases
Osborn v. Packard, 117 P.3d 77 (Colo. Ct. App. 2004).
“§§ 13-22-223(2), 13-22-224(1), C.R.S.2004 (providing ninety days).”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-22-223(4): 1 case
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-22-223(l)(a): 1 case
BFN-GREELEY, LLC v. Adair Grp., Inc., 141 P.3d 937 (Colo. Ct. App. 2006).
“154, § 13 — 22—214(l)(a)(I) at 576 (now re-codified with amendments as § 13-22-223(l)(a), C.R.S.2005). The plain meaning of “procured by” is a causal connection between the improper conduct and the award.”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-22-223(l)(d): 1 case
BFN-GREELEY, LLC v. Adair Grp., Inc., 141 P.3d 937 (Colo. Ct. App. 2006).
“154, § 13 — 22—214(l)(a)(I) at 576 (now re-codified with amendments as § 13-22-223(l)(a), C.R.S.2005). The plain meaning of “procured by” is a causal connection between the improper conduct and the award.”
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.