Whether the arbitrator exceeded his powers by determining whether the newly disputed claims were subject to the parties’ Letter Agreement; Miller v. Miller; Bayati v. Bayati; Arrow Overall Supply Co. v. Peloquin Enters.; Contract interpretation as an issue for the arbitrator to determine; City of Ann Arbor v. American Fed’n of State, Cnty., & Mun. Employees (AFSCME) Local 369; Bennett v. Shearson Lehman-Am. Express, Inc.; The Uniform Arbitration Act (MCL 691.1681 et seq.); MCL 691.1686(2); Claim that the arbitrator did not have jurisdiction to review any new claims raised by defendant because he issued a final award after the initial proceedings; Beattie v. Autostyle Plastics, Inc.; Distinguishing Oakland-Macomb Interceptor Drain Drainage Dist. v. Ric-Man Constr., Inc.; The Construction Industry Rules of Arbitration (CIRA) of the American Arbitration Association (AAA)

The court affirmed the trial court’s order granting summary disposition in favor of defendant-Demaria Building Company. In 2010, the parties entered into an engineering procurement and construction contract for a construction project. The contract provided that all disputes were to be submitted to arbitration in accordance with the CIRA of the AAA. After various disputes arose, they entered into another agreement, “the ‘Letter Agreement,’ which specifically delineated the manner in which they would address their disputes through arbitration. The Letter Agreement provided that a single arbitrator, agreed to by the parties, would decide the parties’ disputes.” On appeal, plaintiff argued that the arbitrator exceeded his powers by determining whether the newly disputed claims were subject to the Letter Agreement. The trial court and the arbitrator “each acknowledged the general rule that the existence and enforceability of a contract to arbitrate is a judicial question, which may not be decided by the arbitrator.” However, this dispute pertained “to the procedure for arbitrating the parties’ newly disputed claims.” Thus, the central issue was whether the newly disputed claims fell within the scope of the Letter Agreement. In deciding this question, the court found it “significant that plaintiff concedes that the Letter Agreement constitutes a valid contract, and both parties agree that the arbitrator has jurisdiction to decide claims falling within the scope of the Letter Agreement.” Because it was clear that “disputes arising between the parties were arbitrable and further, because the arbitrator had the power to arbitrate claims within the scope of the Letter Agreement contract, it was the duty of the arbitrator—and not the trial court—to interpret the Letter Agreement so as to determine whether the newly disputed claims were within the scope of that agreement.” Also, because they agreed “that the arbitrator has jurisdiction to decide claims falling within the scope of the Letter Agreement, the arbitrator did not err in deciding whether the newly disputed claims fell within the scope of the Letter Agreement, and the trial court did not err in holding that it would not disturb the arbitrator’s findings in this regard.” The court rejected plaintiff’s argument that “because the arbitrator issued a final award after the initial proceedings concluded, he did not have jurisdiction to review any new claims raised by defendant.”