Motion to vacate &/or modify & correct the arbitration award

The court affirmed “the trial court’s order correcting and confirming an arbitration award in favor of defendants.” Plaintiffs argued “that the trial court erred by denying their motion to vacate and/or modify and correct the arbitration award and instead correcting and confirming the award as requested by defendants.” Plaintiffs asserted “that the trial court erred in two ways.” First, plaintiffs argued “that the arbitrator exceeded his authority when making factual findings in support of the award, so the [trial] court was obligated to vacate the award pursuant to MCL 691.1703(1)(d).” Second, plaintiffs argued that the trial “court was obligated to vacate or, at minimum, modify the award because the arbitrator made several erroneous factual determinations on which the award was based.” As to their first argument, plaintiffs asserted “that the arbitrator exceeded the authority provided to him in the arbitration agreement because he simply adopted certain findings of fact that the trial court had made in its prior order granting summary disposition to defendants on certain claims, rather than independently making his own findings based on the evidence presented during arbitration.” Plaintiffs argued “that the arbitrator exceeded his authority. Plaintiffs did not, however, challenge before the trial court the arbitrator’s adoption of the court’s prior findings of fact. Accordingly, plaintiffs have waived appellate review of this argument, and we decline to overlook that waiver.” As to their second argument, plaintiffs claimed “that many of the arbitrator’s factual findings were contrary to the evidence presented during arbitration, and they ask this Court—as they had previously asked the trial court—to review those factual findings and deem them erroneous. But, as the trial court duly recognized, a court’s review of an arbitration award is ‘very limited,’ ‘and it is well established that “[a] court may not review an arbitrator’s factual findings or decision on the merits[.]’” Nor may the court “second-guess the arbitrator’s interpretation of the parties’ contract or ‘substitute its judgment for that of the arbitrator.’” The court held that despite “plaintiffs’ protestations to the contrary, their challenge falls squarely within this prohibited space and is thus outside the proper scope of the trial court’s, and this Court’s, review.” Thus, plaintiffs were not entitled to relief on this issue.