Opinion
Docket No. 12833.
Decided October 30, 1973. Leave to appeal applied for.
Appeal from Wayne, Joseph G. Rashid, J. Submitted Division 1 December 14, 1972, at Detroit. (Docket No. 12833.) Decided October 30, 1973. Leave to appeal applied for.
Complaint by Detroit Demolition Corporation against Burroughs Corporation for compensation for services performed, requesting arbitration. Arbitration granted. Arbitration award and judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Remanded for findings of fact and conclusions of law as to arbitrability of certain claims, and jurisdiction retained, 45 Mich. App. 72; 205 N.W.2d 856. Affirmed after remand.
Charles Rubiner and Arthur James Rubiner, for plaintiff.
James M. Clabault, William L. Hooth, and Elliot B. Glicksman, for defendant.
Our initial decision in the instant case is reported at 45 Mich. App. 72; 205 N.W.2d 856 (1973).
The cause was remanded to the trial court to make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to "initial arbitrability of the claims sought to be arbitrated, final payment and acceptance by Detroit [Demolition], and the effect of the execution of `Change Order No. 4' on the arbitration clause in the original contract".
Detroit Demolition Corp v Burroughs Corp, 45 Mich. App. 72, 80; 205 N.W.2d 856, 861 (1973).
There is no purpose in burdening members of the bar with an extended recital of the factual background which is amply set forth in our prior opinion. Nor would it profit anyone for us to give a detailed summary of the facts found and the conclusions of law stated by the learned trial judge in his carefully drawn opinion. Suffice it to say that the found facts are adequately supported by the record and reasonable inferences which may be drawn therefrom; nor does a review of the record reveal that the trial judge departed from settled principles of law in ordering defendant to submit to arbitration the three claims herein and subsequently confirming the arbitration award.
The sum awarded by the arbitrator was in the aggregate amount of $136,000 although there were three separate claims submitted.
For the guidance of those involved in arbitration proceedings in the future we strongly suggest that the appellate process would be greatly assisted if an arbitrator in deciding multiple claims addressed himself to each claim individually rather than rendering a blanket award.
On the basis of the whole record, we affirm. Costs to the appellee.