We demanded arbitration pursuant to the contract and hired an expert witness experienced in project scheduling to explain the critical path method (CPM) for the project. At the arbitration hearing, our expert was superior to the owner’s expert and laid out the reasons for the delay and effect on the agreed schedule. The client then explained the substantial costs incurred by a four-week delay.
A three-member arbitration panel rendered a total award for our client. When we recorded the award as a judgment in the circuit court, the owner kept fighting. They filed a motion to vacate the award under the limited grounds permitted by the Uniform Arbitration Act. The court denied the motion and affirmed the award.
DISCLAIMER: THE CASES AND RESULTS DESCRIBED HEREIN ARE REPRESENTATIVE OF PAST RESULTS OBTAINED BY MILLER, MILLER & CANBY, AND ITS ATTORNEYS. PAST CASE RESULTS DO NOT GUARANTEE FUTURE RESULTS. ALL CASES ARE DISTINCT AND HAVE UNIQUE FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES AND LEGAL QUESTIONS THAT MUST BE CONSIDERED AND EVALUATED ON THEIR OWN MERIT.