(a) Upon the application of any party to an arbitration, the superior court for the judicial district in which one of the parties resides or, in a controversy concerning land, for the judicial district in which the land is situated, or, when the court is not in session, any judge thereof, shall make an order modifying or correcting the award if it finds any of the following defects: (1) If there has been an evident material miscalculation of figures or an evident material mistake in the description of any person, thing or property referred to in the award; (2) if the arbitrators have awarded upon a matter not submitted to them unless it is a matter not affecting the merits of the decision upon the matters submitted; or (3) if the award is imperfect in matter of form not affecting the merits of the controversy.
(b) The order shall modify and correct the award, so as to effect the intent thereof and promote justice between the parties.
(1949 Rev., S. 8162; P.A. 78-280, S. 2, 127; P.A. 82-160, S. 158.)
History: P.A. 78-280 substituted “judicial district” for “county”; P.A. 82-160 rephrased the section, inserted Subsec. indicators and replaced alphabetic Subdiv. indicators with numeric indicators.
Does not empower court to make a correction which affects the merits of the controversy. 136 C. 205. Cited. 141 C. 606; 146 C. 17. Addition by court of “no” as answer to submitted question, where award was denied, was allowed. 151 C. 650. Cited. 160 C. 411; 163 C. 327; 167 C. 315; 176 C. 401; 178 C. 557; 179 C. 678; 183 C. 579; 189 C. 560; 190 C. 14; Id., 707; 196 C. 623; 197 C. 26; 200 C. 376; 206 C. 113; 208 C. 352; 209 C. 280; 212 C. 83; 216 C. 612; 217 C. 110; 218 C. 646; 224 C. 758; 234 C. 123; 239 C. 32.
Cited. 2 CA 346; 4 CA 577; 16 CA 711; 17 CA 280; 29 CA 484; 30 CA 157; 33 CA 1; 34 CA 27; 35 CA 338; Id., 638; 39 CA 122; 44 CA 415; 45 CA 769.
Cited. 15 CS 120; 16 CS 137; 18 CS 237; 20 CS 97; 29 CS 25; 42 CS 336; 45 CS 130.
Subsec. (a):
Does not apply to voluntary arbitration where there has been no evident material miscalculation of figures or evident material mistake in description of any thing or property referred to in the award. 93 CA 704.
Subdiv. (1): No modification of award is warranted where claimed miscalculation, due to failure of arbitrators to make award payable over a period of time, is not evident from the face of the award. 52 CS 295.
Subsec. (c):
Although it is true that statute authorizes correction of an award by Superior Court, correction is made only on the timely application of a party to the arbitration. 149 C. 687.
Notes of Decisions
Chmielewski v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 591 A.2d 101 (Conn. 1991).
· cites it 15× “The defendant claims that, the court’s disclaimer to the contrary notwithstanding, it did not “modify” the award, as the term “modify” is used in General Statutes § 52-419, 25 but rather vacated it and then improperly remanded it in violation of the time constraints for remand…”
Lawrence v. New Hampshire Ins., 616 A.2d 806 (Conn. App. Ct. 1992).
· cites it 16× “Subsequently, the defendant moved to vacate the arbitration award under General Statutes § 52-418. The defendant also moved for modification or correction of the award under General Statutes § 52-419.”
City of Milford v. Coppola Const. Co., Inc., 891 A.2d 31 (Conn. App. Ct. 2006).
· cites it 14× “The plaintiff claims that the court should have modified the arbitrator’s award pursuant to General Statutes § 52-419 (a) 1 because the award (1) failed to conform to the *706 submission and (2) contained material miscalculations.”
Stephan v. Pennsylvania Gen. Ins., 621 A.2d 258 (Conn. 1993).
· cites it 4× “*762 Stephan filed an application in the Superior Court pursuant to General Statutes § 52-419 2 to correct or modify the award of the arbitrators.”
Spearhead Constr. Corp. v. Bianco, 665 A.2d 86 (Conn. App. Ct. 1995).
· cites it 6× “” General Statutes § 52-419 provides: “(a) Upon the application of any party to an arbitration, the superior court for the judicial district in which one of the parties resides or, in a controversy concerning land, for the judicial district in which the land is situated, or,…”
LaSalla v. Doctor's Assocs., Inc., 898 A.2d 803 (Conn. 2006).
· cites it 4× “” Thus, the defendant relies on the following statutory provisions: the court’s judgment regarding an award “shall have the same force and effect” as a civil judgment; General Statutes § 52-421 (b); 13 the strict procedures, standards and time lim *593 its for confirming an…”
Middlesex Mut. Assurance Co. v. Komondy, 991 A.2d 587 (Conn. App. Ct. 2010).
· cites it 8× “Thus, the court was limited to confirming or not confirming the award and was without authority to resolve additional issues such as specifying the manner of payment.”
LaFrance v. Lodmell, 144 A.3d 373 (Conn. 2016).
· cites it 2× “General Statutes § 52-419(a) specifically authorizes the trial court to "make an order modifying or correcting the award if it finds any of the following defects: (1) If there has been an evident material miscalculation of figures or an evident material mistake in the…”
Ko Shu Mei Wu v. Chung-Ming Chang, 823 A.2d 1197 (Conn. 2003).
· cites it 3× “” Section 52-417 also provides that the court may decline to confirm an arbitration award if the award is modified or corrected in accordance with General Statutes § 52-419. See footnote 3 of this opinion.”
Indus. Risk Insurers v. Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Ins., 779 A.2d 737 (Conn. 2001).
· cites it 2× “” General Statutes § 52-419 provides: “(a) Upon the application of any party to an arbitration, the superior court for the judicial district in which one of the parties resides or, in a controversy concerning land, for the judicial district in which the land is situated, or,…”
Alexson v. Foss, 887 A.2d 872 (Conn. 2006).
· cites it 2× “We note that the defendants also argue that the plaintiff could have, but failed to, apply to the trial court pursuant to General Statutes § 52-419 (a) (1) for an order modifying the award with respect to its descriptions of the land at issue.”
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-419(a) — 2 cases
LaFrance v. Lodmell, 144 A.3d 373 (Conn. 2016).
“General Statutes § 52-419(a) specifically authorizes the trial court to "make an order modifying or correcting the award if it finds any of the following defects: (1) If there has been an evident material miscalculation of figures or an evident material mistake in the…”
Middlesex Mut. Assurance Co. v. Komondy, 991 A.2d 587 (Conn. App. Ct. 2010).
“Thus, the court was limited to confirming or not confirming the award and was without authority to resolve additional issues such as specifying the manner of payment.”
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-419(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.