Wash. Rev. Code § 7.04A.200
Change of award by arbitrator
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) On motion to an arbitrator by a party to the arbitration proceeding, the arbitrator may modify or correct an award:
(a) Upon the grounds stated in RCW 7.04A.240(1) (a) or (c);
(b) Because the arbitrator has not made a final and definite award upon a claim submitted by the parties to the arbitration proceeding; or
(c) To clarify the award.
(2) A motion under subsection (1) of this section must be made and served on all parties within twenty days after the movant receives notice of the award.
(3) A party to the arbitration proceeding must serve any objections to the motion within ten days after receipt of the notice.
(4) If a motion to the court is pending under RCW 7.04A.220, 7.04A.230, or 7.04A.240, the court may submit the claim to the arbitrator to consider whether to modify or correct the award:
(a) Upon the grounds stated in RCW 7.04A.240(1) (a) or (c);
(b) Because the arbitrator has not made a final and definite award upon a claim submitted by the parties to the arbitration proceeding; or
(c) To clarify the award.
[ 2005 c 433 s 20.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2010–2025 · leading case: AURC III, LLC v. Point Ruston Phase II, LLC
AURC III, LLC v. Point Ruston Phase II, LLC (2024)
“Relevant here, when a party is notified of an arbitration award, the party may file a motion with the court for an order confirming the award, at which time the court shall issue such an order unless the award is modified or corrected under RCW 7.04A.200 or 7.04A.240 or is…”
Darlington Ofuasia Et Al., Appellants, v. Dana William Smurr Et Al., Respondents (2017)
“¶8 The Ofuasias hired a lawyer who wrote to the arbitrators, moving to change or clarify the arbitration decision pursuant to RCW 7.04A.200 and .240. In their letter, the Ofuasias submitted that the evidence presented at arbitration established that the original fence was…”
Cummings v. Budget Tank Removal & Environmental Services, LLC (2011)
“¶34 “After a party to the arbitration proceeding receives notice of an award, the party may file a motion with the court for an order confirming the award, at which time the court shall issue such an order unless the award is modified or corrected under RCW 7.04A.200 or…”
Puget Sound Environmental Corp. v. Everett Shipyard, Inc. (2010)
“The court shall issue an order confirming the award unless the court modifies, corrects, or vacates the award under the limited circumstances set forth in RCW 7.04A.200, .240, or .230. ¶19 Under RCW 7.”
Kitsap County Deputy Sheriffs' Guild v. Kitsap County (2015)
“Arbitration awards under the Washington uniform arbitration act are not reviewed to determine if they are arbitrary or capricious, see RCW 7.04A.200, .220-.240, and we have expressly declined to review arbitration arising under contract under an arbitrary and capricious standard…”
Saleemi v. Doctor's Associates, Inc. (2012)
“190 or within ninety days after the movant receives notice of an arbitrator’s award in a record on a motion to modify or correct an award under RCW 7.04A.200, unless the motion is predicated upon the ground that the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or other undue means,…”
Viceroy Group, Llc, Et Ano v. Tok, Llc, Et Ano (2021)
“” The mere fact that RCW 7.04A.200 allows an arbitrator to modify an award in order to clarify it does not mean that every clarification of an award is a modification.”
Marvin Olsen, Et Ux v. H. Gary Wallis, Et Ux (2017)
“Either party may file a motion under RCW 7.04A.200 for the arbitrator to modify or correct the award.”
Everett Shipyard v. Puget Sound Envt'l (2010)
“The court shall issue an order confirming the award unless the court modifies, corrects, or vacates the award under the limited circumstances set forth in RCW 7.04A.200, .240, or.230. ¶ 19 Under RCW 7.”
David W. Newell v. Providence Health & Services (2019)
“Swedish failed to ask the arbitrator to modify the arbitration award, see RCW 7.04A.200, and the superior court refused to do so.”
Bradley Feldman, V, Darren Williams (2024)
“RCW 7.04A.200(4). Judicial review of an arbitration award is limited to the face of the award, and the award will not be vacated or modified in the absence of an error of law on the face of the award.”
Newman Du Wors, V. Landmark Technology A, Llc (2024)
“In Washington, “RCW 7.04A.200, .240, and .230 provide narrow grounds for modifying, correcting, or vacating an arbitrator’s award.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.04A.200(1)(c) — 1 case
Viceroy Group, Llc, Et Ano v. Tok, Llc, Et Ano (2021)
“” The mere fact that RCW 7.04A.200 allows an arbitrator to modify an award in order to clarify it does not mean that every clarification of an award is a modification.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.04A.200(2) — 1 case
Viceroy Group, Llc, Et Ano v. Tok, Llc, Et Ano (2021)
“” The mere fact that RCW 7.04A.200 allows an arbitrator to modify an award in order to clarify it does not mean that every clarification of an award is a modification.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.04A.200(4) — 1 case
Bradley Feldman, V, Darren Williams (2024)
“RCW 7.04A.200(4). Judicial review of an arbitration award is limited to the face of the award, and the award will not be vacated or modified in the absence of an error of law on the face of the award.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.04A.200(5) — 1 case
Viceroy Group, Llc, Et Ano v. Tok, Llc, Et Ano (2021)
“” The mere fact that RCW 7.04A.200 allows an arbitrator to modify an award in order to clarify it does not mean that every clarification of an award is a modification.”
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.