Ciampa v. Chubb Group of Ins. Companies
| Decision Date | 26 July 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-766,87-766 |
| Citation | 26 Mass.App.Ct. 941,525 N.E.2d 1344 |
| Parties | Joseph H. CIAMPA v. CHUBB GROUP OF INSURANCE COMPANIES. |
| Court | Appeals Court of Massachusetts |
James S. Franchek (Isaac H. Peres, Boston, with him), for defendant.
William P. Franzese, Boston, for plaintiff.
Before ARMSTRONG, PERRETTA and WARNER, JJ.
RESCRIPT.
Accepting as generally valid the functus officio principle relied on by the defendant (Chubb)--i.e., the principle that an arbitrator is without power to modify his final award except where the controlling statute or the parties authorize modification, see La Vale Plaza, Inc. v. R.S. Noonan, Inc., 378 F.2d 569, 572 (3d Cir.1967)--we nevertheless hold that the modification effected by the arbitrator in this case fell within the statutory authorization. The original award, issued on October 21, 1986, stated that "[t]he present value of the amount of $138,750.00 [the loss of earnings found by the arbitrator at the rate of $150 per week for 925 weeks] using the current legal rate of interest of 12% is $18,837.00 and accordingly Ciampa has been damaged in that amount." The Uniform Arbitration Act, G.L. c. 251, § 13(a )(1), St.1972, c. 200, § 2, authorizes the court to "modify or correct the award if ... there was an evident miscalculation of figures ..." on an application filed, as Ciampa's was, within thirty days. Quirk v. Data Terminal Syss., Inc., 394 Mass. 334, 338-339, 475 N.E.2d 1208 (1985). It is "evident", within the meaning of § 13(a )(1), that the sum of $18,837, invested at twelve percent per annum, will not support a weekly payment of $150 per week for 925 weeks.
Here the court did not itself correct the mistake but suggested to the parties that they first seek reconsideration by the arbitrator. Section 9 of G.L. c. 251 authorizes a direct submission from the court to the arbitrator for a modification or correction of the type described in § 13(a )(1). While a direct, formal submission might have been preferable, the informal procedure followed here did not jeopardize the substantial rights of Chubb (which participated in the resubmission, at least initially, by sending its own documentation to the arbitrator). The fact that Ciampa had previously (and unsuccessfully) sought reconsideration by the arbitrator on an application filed under § 9 did not limit the court's authority to effect a similar resubmission. The twenty-day time limit specified in § 9 applies...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bank of Am., N.A. v. Casey
...to modify his final award except where the controlling statute or the parties authorize modification.” Ciampa v. Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 26 Mass.App.Ct. 941, 941, 525 N.E.2d 1344 (1988). See Connecticut Valley Sanitary Waste Disposal v. Zielinski, 436 Mass. 263, 268, 763 N.E.2d 1080 (2002......
-
Baxter Health Care, Corp. v. Harvard Apparatus, Inc.
...modify his final award except where the controlling statute or the parties authorize modification ...," Ciampa v. Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 26 Mass.App.Ct. 941, 525 N.E.2d 1344 (1988), and that G.L. c. 251 was designed "to further the speedy, efficient, and uncomplicated resolution of busin......
-
Harvard Community Health Plan, Inc. v. Zack
...& Me. Corp. v. Massachusetts Bay Transp. Authy., 363 Mass. 386, 394-395, 294 N.E.2d 340 (1973). Cf. Ciampa v. Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 26 Mass.App.Ct. 941, 525 N.E.2d 1344 (1988). At the motions hearing, both parties declined the court's "invitation to seek clarification from the ...
-
Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
...9,” arbitration panel could not materially alter award more than twenty days after issuance); see also Ciampa v. Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 26 Mass.App.Ct. 941–42, 525 N.E.2d 1344 (1988).Liberty claims that the Clarification does not fall within the terms of G.L. c. 251, § 9, and that the st......