UNIFORM ARBITRATION ACT
Act 371 of 2012
691.1681 Short title; definitions.
Sec. 1.
(1) This act shall be known and may be cited as the "uniform arbitration act".
(2) As used in this act:
(a) "Arbitration organization" means an association, agency, board, commission, or other entity that is neutral and initiates, sponsors, or administers an arbitration proceeding or is involved in the appointment of an arbitrator.
(b) "Arbitrator" means an individual appointed to render an award, alone or with others, in a controversy that is subject to an agreement to arbitrate.
(c) "Court" means the circuit court.
(d) "Knowledge" means actual knowledge.
(e) "Person" means an individual, corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, limited liability company, association, joint venture, government; governmental subdivision, agency, or instrumentality; public corporation; or any other legal or commercial entity.
(f) "Record" means information that is inscribed on a tangible medium or that is stored in an electronic or other medium and is retrievable in perceivable form.
History: 2012, Act 371, Eff. July 1, 2013
Notes of Decisions
Bienenstock & Assocs., Inc v. Lowry, 887 N.W.2d 237 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
“But we do not rely on that case, nor do we need to address Michigan’s Uniform Arbitration Act, MCL 691.1681 et seq., because this issue is controlled by federal law.”
Fette v. Peters Constr. Co, 871 N.W.2d 877 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
“While the UAA provides that it “governs an agreement to arbitrate whenever made,” MCL 691.”
Simcor Constr. Inc v. Carl J Trupp III, 912 N.W.2d 216 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
“1702 of the Uniform Arbitration Act, MCL 691.1681 et seq., states: After a party to an arbitration proceeding receives notice of an award, the party may move the court for an order confirming the award at which time the court shall issue a confirming order unless the award is…”
Savers Prop. & Cas. Ins. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins., 748 F.3d 708 (6th Cir. 2014).
“371 (codified at Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 691.1681 - 1713). However, the Act provided that the old regime would govern arbitration proceedings commenced prior to July 31,2013.”
Altobelli v. Hartmann, 861 N.W.2d 913 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
“, was repealed and replaced by the Uniform Arbitration Act, MCL 691.1681 etseq. See 2012 PA 370 and 2012 PA 371 .”
Nickola v. Mic Gen. Ins. Co., 878 N.W.2d 480 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
“For instance, in a scenario in which an accident rendered an otherwise healthy insured a quadriplegic and the tortfea-sor’s insurance policy provided only $20,000 in recovery, there could likely be no dispute that the insured was entitled to UIM coverage.”
Charlie Davis v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 3× “Eventually the parties entered into an arbitration agreement, which provided that plaintiff’s claim for “benefits, interest, costs and attorney fees” would be submitted to binding arbitration under MCL 691.1681. The agreement also provided that, in consideration for arbitrating…”
John Henry Rozanski v. Fred S Findling (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 3× “1706 provides guidance regarding a trial court’s jurisdiction in a case where arbitration is at issue, and provides, in pertinent part, as follows: (1) A court of this state that has jurisdiction over the controversy and the parties may enforce an agreement to arbitrate.”
John Henry Rozanski v. Fred S Findling (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 3× “1706 provides guidance regarding a trial court’s jurisdiction in a case where arbitration is at issue, and provides, in pertinent part, as follows: (1) A court of this state that has jurisdiction over the controversy and the parties may enforce an agreement to arbitrate.”
Mohammed a Mumith v. Mohammed a Muhith (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 2× “602 and MCL 691.1681 et seq. The Plaintiff will select an arbitrator; the Defendant will select an arbitrator; and the two arbitrators will select the third arbitrator.”
Ronald Tinsley v. Norman Yatooma (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 2× “] The Uniform Arbitration Act (UAA), MCL 691.1681 et seq., which was enacted pursuant to 2012 PA 371 , provides that “[o]n or after July 1, 2013, this act governs an agreement to arbitrate whenever made.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1681(2)(f) — 1 case
Ronald Tinsley v. Norman Yatooma (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
“] The Uniform Arbitration Act (UAA), MCL 691.1681 et seq., which was enacted pursuant to 2012 PA 371 , provides that “[o]n or after July 1, 2013, this act governs an agreement to arbitrate whenever made.”
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.