(a) If the time within which an award is rendered has not been fixed in the arbitration agreement, the arbitrator or arbitrators or umpire shall render the award within thirty days from the date the hearing or hearings are completed, or, if the parties are to submit additional material after the hearing or hearings, thirty days from the date fixed by the arbitrator or arbitrators or umpire for the receipt of the material. An award made after that time shall have no legal effect unless the parties expressly extend the time in which the award may be made by an extension or ratification in writing.
(b) The award shall be in writing and signed by the arbitrator or arbitrators, or a majority of them, or by the umpire. Written notice of the award shall be given to each party.
(1949 Rev., S. 8159; 1969, P.A. 474, S. 2; P.A. 82-160, S. 155.)
History: 1969 act required rendering of award within 30 days from date hearing or hearings completed or within 30 days after date fixed for receipt of additional material, if applicable, where previously award was to be rendered within 60 days “from the date on which such arbitrator or arbitrators were empowered to act”; P.A. 82-160 rephrased the section and inserted Subsec. indicators.
Is a general provision and does not apply as against Sec. 31-97 governing proceedings before the board. 136 C. 205. Cited. 138 C. 68. Concerns arbitration awards generally; distinguished from Sec. 31-98. 145 C. 53. Award made after period limited must be vacated where there was no extension in writing of time for making same. 157 C. 362. Cited. 163 C. 327; 177 C. 484; 200 C. 345; 203 C. 133; 211 C. 541; 218 C. 646.
Cited. 7 CA 272; 10 CA 292; 23 CA 727; 26 CA 418; 28 CA 270; 29 CA 484; 30 CA 580; 32 CA 250; 41 CA 649. Applies only when agreement does not specify time within which award must be rendered. 80 CA 1. Because arbitrator held the hearing open in order to receive additional information, the award was rendered within 30 days from the date the hearings were closed. 151 CA 307.
Statute is directory rather than mandatory. 18 CS 239. Where there was nothing in the application to indicate when the arbitrator was empowered to act, a finding that the award was not made within the time limit was overruled. 19 CS 385. Where award is not rendered within the 60-day period, motion to vacate must be made within 30 days thereafter under Sec. 52-420; motion to strike answer in lieu of demurrer permissible procedure. 20 CS 94. Only the parties to an arbitration agreement may extend the 60-day period. Id., 185. Not applicable to an arbitration before State Board of Mediation and Arbitration. Id., 303. Statute is not applicable to arbitration of a grievance between an employer and a union arising under a collective bargaining contract. 36 CS 223. Cited. 41 CS 302.
Subsec. (a):
If there is no evidence of an express extension of the 30-day requirement, there is nothing to support a finding of waiver; failure to object to an untimely arbitration award is insufficient to indicate waiver. 100 CA 373.
Subsec. (b):
Defendant's motion to vacate arbitration award for lack of notice was properly denied because defendant's husband received written notice and had apparent authority to accept written notice on behalf of defendant. 120 CA 117.
Notes of Decisions
Remax Right Choice v. Aryeh, 918 A.2d 976 (Conn. App. Ct. 2007).
· cites it 41× “On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly (1) concluded that the award was not void as a matter of law and (2) found that the parties waived the thirty day time period set forth in General Statutes § 52-416 (a). We agree with the defendant that the court…”
Admin. & Residual Employees Union v. State, 510 A.2d 989 (Conn. 1986).
· cites it 16× “The sole issue on this appeal is whether General Statutes § 52-416 (a) 1 requires that extensions of time in which an arbitrator must issue his award be in writing where the arbitration agreement fixes the time limitations and allows for oral extensions.”
Carr v. Trotta, 508 A.2d 799 (Conn. App. Ct. 1986).
· cites it 16× “He claimed (1) that he did not receive sufficient notice of the arbitration hearing, (2) that the underlying contract providing for arbitration was cancelled by him, and (3) that the arbitrator did not render his award within thirty days of the comple *274 tion of the hearing as…”
Chmielewski v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 591 A.2d 101 (Conn. 1991).
· cites it 6× “Since the arbitration provision of *651 the policy did not set a time limit within which the arbitrators had to render their decision, the parties agreed to extend to December 1, 1989, the thirty day time period for rendering an arbitration award provided by General Statutes §…”
Hayes v. Travelers Indem. Co. of Am., 601 A.2d 555 (Conn. App. Ct. 1992).
· cites it 13× “At a later hearing on the plaintiffs application for an order directing the defendant to proceed with arbitration, the trial court concluded that the bill for services that was sent to the plaintiff on November 12, 1990, constituted sufficient notice of the award as required by…”
Marsala v. Valve Corp. of Am., 254 A.2d 469 (Conn. 1969).
· cites it 13× “were empowered to act”, as required by General Statutes § 52-416, and (b) that the arbitrators, prior *365 to hearing testimony and taking evidence, were not sworn as required by General Statutes § 52-414 and there was no written waiver of this requirement.”
O & G/O'Connell Jt. Venture v. Chase Fam. Ltd. P'ship No. 3, 523 A.2d 1271 (Conn. 1987).
· cites it 4× “” The court further determined that under the time constraints set forth in General Statutes §§ 52-416 (a) and 52-418 (b), and in Rule 36 of the Construction Industry Arbitration Rules, it had no authority to reopen the hearings after October 10,1985, the date on which the panel…”
AFSCME, Council 4, Local 704 v. Dep't of Pub. Health, 832 A.2d 106 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003).
· cites it 14× “I The union claims that the court improperly denied its application to vacate the award because the deadline had passed under General Statutes § 52-416 and the agreement, without a valid extension from the parties, and because the parties had taken joint action to discharge the…”
State v. AFSCME, Council 4, Local 1565, 713 A.2d 869 (Conn. App. Ct. 1998).
· cites it 8× “On February 13,1997, the court rendered judgment vacating the award because it found that the award failed to fix definitively the rights of the parties. The trial court further held that because the award was not final, definite and mutual, thirty days after the hearing…”
Wolf v. Gould, 522 A.2d 1240 (Conn. App. Ct. 1987).
· cites it 6× “More specifically, he claims that the trial court erred by rendering an award that (1) did not conform to the submission as narrowed by the arbitrator, (2) was against public policy, and (3) was rendered more than thirty days after completion of the hearing in violation of…”
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-416(b) — 1 case
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.