ILCS » Chapter 710 · Act 5
Illinois Compiled Statutes

710 ILCS 5/13 (2026)

Modification or correction of awards

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(710 ILCS 5/13) (from Ch. 10, par. 113)
    Sec. 13. Modification or correction of awards.
    (a) Upon application made within 90 days after delivery of a copy of the award to the applicant, the court shall modify or correct the award where:
    (1) There was an evident miscalculation of figures or an evident mistake in the description of any person, thing or property referred to in the award;
    (2) The arbitrators have awarded upon a matter not submitted to them and the award may be corrected without affecting the merits of the decision upon the issues submitted; or
    (3) The award is imperfect in a matter of form, not affecting the merits of the controversy.
    (b) If the application is granted, the court shall modify and correct the award so as to effect its intent and shall confirm the award as so modified and corrected. Otherwise, the court shall confirm the award as made.
    (c) An application to modify or correct an award may be joined in the alternative with an application to vacate the award.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 3844.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1993–2026 · leading case: Fed. Signal Corp. v. SLC Tech., Inc., 743 N.E.2d 1066 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Fed. Signal Corp. v. SLC Tech., Inc., 743 N.E.2d 1066 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001). · cites it 5× “In particular, SLC sought clarification of the following: “What is the basis for the court’s denial of SLC’S motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings? Did the Court determine that the arbitration award is subject to modification or vacation pursuant to 710 ILCS 5/12 or…”
Herricane Graphics, Inc. v. Blinderman Constr. Co., 820 N.E.2d 619 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004). · cites it 2× “Plaintiff sought to vacate the award under section 12(a)(3) of the Uniform Arbitration Act (Arbitration Act) (710 ILCS 5/12(a)(3) (West 2002)) or, in the alternative, to modify the award pursuant to section 13 of the Arbitration Act (710 ILCS 5/13 (West 2002)). On January 29,…”
Sloan Elec. v. Prof'l Realty & Dev. Corp., 819 N.E.2d 37 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004). · cites it 2× “Section 13(a) of the Arbitration Act (710 ILCS 5/13(a) (West 2002)) allows a court to modify or correct an award where: there was an evident miscalculation or an error in a description; the arbitrator ruled on a matter not submitted to him, and the court is able to correct the…”
Glass, Molders, Pottery, Plastics & Allied Workers Int'l Union, Afl-Cio, Clc, Local 182b v. Excelsior Foundry Co., 56 F.3d 844 (7th Cir. 1995). “The Act defines modification and correction so narrowly, 710 ILCS 5/13, as to seem to exclude requests for mere clarification.”
Equity Ins. Managers of Ill. v. Mcnichols, 755 N.E.2d 75 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001). “II McNichols next argues the arbitrator’s award of consequential damages in the form of lost profits was a gross error because she did not contemplate such damages at the time she entered into the employment contract. •3 A court will modify or correct an award where there is an…”
Galasso v. KNS Companies, Inc., 845 N.E.2d 857 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006). “Section 13(a) of the Arbitration Act (710 ILCS 5/13(a) (West 2002)) allows a court to modify or correct an award where: (1) there was an evident miscalculation or an error in a description; (2) the arbitrators ruled on a matter not submitted to them, and the court is able to…”
Contract Dev. Corp. v. Beck, 627 N.E.2d 760 (Ill. App. Ct. 1994). “Section 13 of the Uniform Arbitration Act, adopted in Illinois (710 ILCS 5/13 (West 1992)), requires a party seeking the modification of an award to file an application within 90 days after delivery of a copy of the award to the applicant.”
Lemna v. Harry F. Shea & Co., 628 N.E.2d 577 (Ill. App. Ct. 1993). · cites it 3× “113; 710 ILCS 5/13 (West 1992).) We must disagree.”
Perkins Restaurants Operating Co. v. Van Den Bergh Foods Co., 657 N.E.2d 1085 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995). “” 710 ILCS 5/13(a) (West 1992). Gross errors of judgment in law or a gross mistake of fact will not vitiate an arbitration award unless the mistakes or errors are apparent on the face of the award.”
Shultz v. Atl. Mut. Ins., 853 N.E.2d 94 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006). “” 710 ILCS 5/13(a) (West 2000). “Since the agreement of the parties fixes the ‘conditions, limitations and restrictions to be observed by the arbitrator in making his award’ [citation], the agreement defines the limits of the arbitrator’s powers.”
Shearson Lehman Bros., Inc. v. Hedrich, 639 N.E.2d 228 (Ill. App. Ct. 1994). “113(a)(1) (now 710 ILCS 5/13(a)(1) (West 1992))) and the FAA ( 9 U.”
Kenny v. Kenny Indus., Inc., 951 N.E.2d 499 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010). “” 710 ILCS 5/13(a), (b) (West 2008). Under section 12(a) of the Arbitration Act (710 ILCS 5/12(a) (West 2008)), the court shall vacate the award where: (1) it was procured by corruption, fraud or other undue means; (2) there was evident partiality, corruption or misconduct; (3)…”
Show all 23 citing cases →
— 710 ILCS 5/13(a) — 11 cases
Sloan Elec. v. Prof'l Realty & Dev. Corp., 819 N.E.2d 37 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004). “Section 13(a) of the Arbitration Act (710 ILCS 5/13(a) (West 2002)) allows a court to modify or correct an award where: there was an evident miscalculation or an error in a description; the arbitrator ruled on a matter not submitted to him, and the court is able to correct the…”
Herricane Graphics, Inc. v. Blinderman Constr. Co., 820 N.E.2d 619 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004). “Plaintiff sought to vacate the award under section 12(a)(3) of the Uniform Arbitration Act (Arbitration Act) (710 ILCS 5/12(a)(3) (West 2002)) or, in the alternative, to modify the award pursuant to section 13 of the Arbitration Act (710 ILCS 5/13 (West 2002)). On January 29,…”
Galasso v. KNS Companies, Inc., 845 N.E.2d 857 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006). “Section 13(a) of the Arbitration Act (710 ILCS 5/13(a) (West 2002)) allows a court to modify or correct an award where: (1) there was an evident miscalculation or an error in a description; (2) the arbitrators ruled on a matter not submitted to them, and the court is able to…”
Perkins Restaurants Operating Co. v. Van Den Bergh Foods Co., 657 N.E.2d 1085 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995). “” 710 ILCS 5/13(a) (West 1992). Gross errors of judgment in law or a gross mistake of fact will not vitiate an arbitration award unless the mistakes or errors are apparent on the face of the award.”
Shultz v. Atl. Mut. Ins., 853 N.E.2d 94 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006). “” 710 ILCS 5/13(a) (West 2000). “Since the agreement of the parties fixes the ‘conditions, limitations and restrictions to be observed by the arbitrator in making his award’ [citation], the agreement defines the limits of the arbitrator’s powers.”
— 710 ILCS 5/13(a)(1) — 5 cases
Shearson Lehman Bros., Inc. v. Hedrich, 639 N.E.2d 228 (Ill. App. Ct. 1994). “113(a)(1) (now 710 ILCS 5/13(a)(1) (West 1992))) and the FAA ( 9 U.”
Lemna v. Harry F. Shea & Co., 628 N.E.2d 577 (Ill. App. Ct. 1993). “113; 710 ILCS 5/13 (West 1992).) We must disagree.”
Policeman's Benevolent Fund & Prot. Ass'n, Unit 156 A - Sergeants v. City of Chicago, 2022 IL App (1st) 211316-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2022).
Sanchez (C.D. Ill. 2026).
Equity Ins. Managers of Illinois, LLC v. McNichols (Ill. App. Ct. 2001).
— 710 ILCS 5/13(a)(3) — 2 cases
Cruz v. Nw. Chrysler Plymouth Sales, Inc., 674 N.E.2d 871 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996).
Jutla v. Dovitz, 2022 IL App (1st) 210842-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2022).
— 710 ILCS 5/13(a)(l) — 1 case
Equity Ins. Managers of Ill. v. Mcnichols, 755 N.E.2d 75 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001). “II McNichols next argues the arbitrator’s award of consequential damages in the form of lost profits was a gross error because she did not contemplate such damages at the time she entered into the employment contract. •3 A court will modify or correct an award where there is an…”
— 710 ILCS 5/13(b) — 2 cases
Fed. Signal Corp. v. SLC Tech., Inc., 743 N.E.2d 1066 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001). “In particular, SLC sought clarification of the following: “What is the basis for the court’s denial of SLC’S motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings? Did the Court determine that the arbitration award is subject to modification or vacation pursuant to 710 ILCS 5/12 or…”
Fed. Signal Corp. v. SLC Tech., Inc. (Ill. App. Ct. 2001).
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.