{"id":903959,"date":"2025-02-12T15:23:48","date_gmt":"2025-02-12T22:23:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?p=903959"},"modified":"2025-02-12T15:24:00","modified_gmt":"2025-02-12T22:24:00","slug":"arbitration-lessons-from-recent-arizona-case","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/arbitration-lessons-from-recent-arizona-case\/","title":{"rendered":"Arbitration Lessons From a Arizona Recent Case,\u00a0Chayce Concrete, LLC v. Path Construction Southwest, LLC"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Creighton P. Dixon and Courtney Moore | Snell & Wilmer<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In\u00a0Chayce Concrete, LLC v. Path Construction Southwest, LLC<\/em>, the Arizona Court of Appeals reaffirmed Arizona courts\u2019 deference to arbitrators when it comes to confirming an arbitrator\u2019s award<\/a>. The opinion further highlights the importance of timely addressing discovery disputes, including requests to postpone a hearing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The case was a prototypical construction dispute between a general contractor and its subcontractor. The general contractor was hired to complete a trailhead improvement project for the City of Scottsdale, and the subcontractor completed specific portions of the trailhead project. Disagreements developed relating to the subcontractor\u2019s alleged nonperformance and the general contractor\u2019s alleged failure to meet its payment obligations. Notably, the parties agreed to arbitrate their dispute.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The parties conducted discovery, including the subcontractor serving the general contractor requests for production. The general contractor produced documents requested by the subcontractor while simultaneously objecting to some of the requests and noting it was withholding particular categories of documents on that basis. Nearly three months later and only days before the commencement of the arbitration hearing, the subcontractor proffered its first challenges to the general contractor\u2019s discovery responses. For example, the subcontractor argued that the general contractor failed to produce documents that could have supported the subcontractor\u2019s arguments. The subcontractor allegedly requested to postpone the arbitration hearing, but there was no record of a written or oral request to do so.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

After the hearing, the arbitrator ruled in favor of the general contractor, but the Superior Court refused to enter the award and instead vacated the arbitration award in accordance with A.R.S. \u00a7 12-3023(A)(1) and A.R.S. \u00a7 12-3023(A)(3). On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the Superior Court\u2019s decision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court of Appeals evaluated two of the statutory bases to vacate an arbitration award. First, pursuant to A.R.S. \u00a7 12-3023(A)(1), the Superior Court shall vacate an arbitration award on motion by a party to the arbitration proceeding if the award was obtained by corruption, fraud, or undue means. Here, the Court of Appeals could not identify any facts in the record indicating that the general contractor engaged in corruption, fraud, or undue means justifying the Superior Court\u2019s decision to vacate the initial arbitration award. Rather, the Court of Appeals noted that the arbitrator\u2019s award specifically evaluated the subcontractor\u2019s complaints about the general contractor\u2019s allegedly insufficient disclosures.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As it relates to A.R.S. \u00a7 12-3023(A)(3), an arbitration award shall be vacated on a motion by a party to the arbitration when an arbitrator fails to postpone an arbitration hearing on showing of cause sufficient for postponement, substantially prejudicing the rights of the party. In Chayce<\/em>, the Court of Appeals rejected the Superior Court\u2019s ruling that the arbitrator failed to postpone the arbitration hearing and that the subcontractor was prejudiced as a consequence. The Court of Appeals found no evidence to demonstrate that the subcontractor requested a postponement of the arbitration and, even if it did request a postponement, the arbitrator had the discretion to deny it. As such, the Superior Court erred in vacating the arbitration award under A.R.S. \u00a7 12-3023(A)(3).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

With the Court of Appeals clarifying the bounds of these statutes, contractors and their counsel should consider the following for their next arbitration:<\/p>\n\n\n\n