736 P.2d 1100 (Wash.App. Div. 1 1987), 15877-5, W.A. Botting Plumbing and Heating Co. v. Constructors-Pamco
|Citation:||736 P.2d 1100, 47 Wn.App. 681|
|Party Name:||In re Arbitration of W.A. BOTTING PLUMBING AND HEATING COMPANY, Respondent, and CONSTRUCTORS-PAMCO, Appellant.|
|Attorney:||Douglas K. Haughton, Thomas D. Frey, John Budlong, Stafford, Frey & Mertel, Seattle, for Constructors-Pamco., Joel McCormick, Winston & Cashatt, Spokane, for W.A. Botting Plumbing and Heating Co.|
|Judge Panel:||RINGOLD, A.C.J., and PEKELIS, J., concur.|
|Case Date:||May 18, 1987|
|Court:||Court of Appeals of Washington|
[47 Wn.App. 682]
Constructors-Pamco (Pamco) appeals from an order confirming an arbitration award in favor of W.A. Botting Plumbing and Heating Company (Botting). Pamco argues that the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. We disagree.
Pamco was awarded a construction contract by the Snohomish County Public Utility District No. 1. Pamco thereafter subcontracted a majority of the mechanical work to Botting. The agreement between Pamco and Botting included the following arbitration clause:
Any controversy or claim affecting only CONTRACTOR and SUBCONTRACTOR and arising out of or relating to this CONTRACT, or the breach thereof, shall be settled in accordance with the Construction Industry Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association, and judgment upon the award may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof.
Botting sought recovery for various items and demanded arbitration pursuant to the subcontract.
After the completion of the arbitration hearing, Pamco submitted a memorandum to the arbitrator contesting, inter alia, the arbitrator's jurisdiction. Pamco's objection to the arbitrator's jurisdiction was based on the premise that the dispute involved parties in addition to the contractor and subcontractor and was therefore not subject to arbitration [47 Wn.App. 683] pursuant to a clause in the general contract between it and the Public Utility District. Pamco claims that this clause was incorporated into the subcontract. That clause, General Condition 39 of the General Contract, provided in pertinent part:
The adjusted unit price shall be mutually agreed upon between the Contractor, the Engineer and the Owner and shall be based on the Contractor's cost data when verified by the Engineer.
Pamco argues that the mutual agreement necessary to obtain a unit price adjustment involves a party other than the contractor and subcontractor, namely the owner.
The arbitrator reopened the hearing in order to rule on the issues presented in the post-hearing memorandum. Botting was given an opportunity to respond and did so. After considering all the evidence, the...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP