The Pool Company, Inc. v. MW Golden Constructors.
2024 COA 116. No. 24CA0262. Arbitration—Appeals.
October 17, 2024
South Suburban Parks and Recreation District (the district) hired MW Golden Constructors (MW Golden) as the general contractor for a project to build swimming pools and related bath houses. MW Golden hired The Pool Company, Inc. (Pool Company) as a subcontractor to install and paint the pools’ interior linings. MW Golden and Pool Company got into a dispute over alleged defects in Pool Company’s work and the amount that MW Golden owed to Pool Company under their contract. Pool Company filed a complaint against MW Golden; the district; and Western Surety Company (Western), the surety on that payment bond. The district court stayed the case so the parties could arbitrate their dispute per their contract. A panel of arbitrators issued a “final award” in favor of MW Golden, but they didn’t explain why they found in MW Golden’s favor or how they arrived at the awarded amount. Pool Company asked the arbitrators to clarify the final award under the American Arbitration Association’s Construction Industry Arbitration Rule R-51. The arbitrators denied the request for clarification, concluding that they lacked authority under Rule R-51. MW Golden moved the district court to confirm the final award and to enter judgment on the award. As relevant here, Pool Company requested remand of the case to the arbitrators for them to clarify their final award if the court deemed the award ambiguous, invoking § 13-22-220(4) as authority. The court confirmed the arbitration award and entered judgment. Pool Company didn’t appeal the order confirming the arbitration award and denying the request to remand for clarification, but it filed a motion for clarification under §§ 13-22 220(4)(c) and -224 again requesting that the court remand the matter to the arbitrators for clarification. The court denied the motion, reiterating that any clarification request had to be addressed to the arbitrators, and that the arbitrators had already declined to clarify the award.
Pool Company appealed the order denying its motion to remand for clarification, and MW Golden and Western moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Because an order denying such a motion is not among the orders that can be appealed under § 13-22-228(1), the court of appeals determined that a party may not appeal a district court’s order denying a motion to remand a case to an arbitrator for clarification of an award. Accordingly, the court lacked jurisdiction over this appeal.
The court also denied MW Golden’s and Western’s requests for awards of their costs and attorney fees incurred on appeal.
The appeal was dismissed with prejudice.