The Sweatts contend the arbitrator overstepped his authority by awarding damages not allowed by the contract. Compare Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Trinity Christian c. Church, 231 Ga. App. 617, 620 (1) ( 500 S.E.2d 374) (1998). They claim that an award to IDC and Bruns of actual damages violated the express terms of the contract which permitted only the recovery of liquidated damages.
The panel did not ignore the terms of the subcontractor agreement or refuse to consider Century's claim for breach of duty to defend. See Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Trinity Christian Methodist Episcopal Church , 231 Ga. App. 617, 619 (2), 500 S.E.2d 374 (1998) (noting that the arbitrator had "inherent power to fashion a remedy as long as the award draws its essence from the contract or statute") (citation omitted). To the contrary, the panel considered the article of the contract that imposed the duty to defend, heard arguments from both sides, and concluded the provision was enforceable "to the extent damages are attributable to Magnum's negligence."
MARTA v. Local 732, Amalgamated Transit Union , 261 Ga. 191, 195 (2) (a), 403 S.E.2d 51 (1991). See also Greene v. Hundley , 266 Ga. 592, 595 (2), 468 S.E.2d 350 (1996) ; Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Trinity Christian Methodist Episcopal Church , 231 Ga. App. 617, 619-620 (2), 500 S.E.2d 374 (1998) (stating, "[a]s the awards are consistent with the terms of the Agreement and thus reflect the ‘essence’ of the contract, they do not demonstrate an imperfect execution of the umpire's authority"). Additionally, the Georgia Arbitration "Code specifically states that merely because the relief granted in the arbitration award ‘could not or would not be granted by a court of law or equity is not ground for vacating or refusing to confirm an award.’ "
In arguing that the omission of findings of fact and conclusions of law from the arbitration award did not supply a ground for vacatur, the wife points to several cases enunciating the general rule that an arbitrator is not required to make findings of fact or explain his or her reasoning for the arbitration award. See Greene v. Hundley , 266 Ga. 592, 595 (2), 468 S.E.2d 350 (1996) ; Payton v. Jackson , 326 Ga. App. 319, 321, 756 S.E.2d 555 (2014) ; Azordegan v. Ebrahimi , 311 Ga. App. 509, 510 (2), 716 S.E.2d 528 (2011) ; Doman v. Stapleton , 272 Ga. App. 114, 117, 611 S.E.2d 673 (2005) ; Marchelletta v. Seay Constr. Svcs. , 265 Ga. App. 23, 28 (2), 593 S.E.2d 64 (2004) ; Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Trinity Christian Methodist Episcopal Church , 231 Ga. App. 617, 620 (2), 500 S.E.2d 374 (1998) ; Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co. v. Nunnally Lumber Co. , 176 Ga. App. 232, 234-235 (2), 335 S.E.2d 708 (1985). But the cases cited by the wife are distinguishable because none of them involved the situation where, as in the current case, the parties chose to include an express provision in their arbitration agreement requiring the arbitrator to make findings of fact and conclusions of law.
To the extent that Doman charges Stapleton with fraud in procuring the award by submitting a false affidavit in support of this aspect of his attorney fee claim, the record (which contains no transcript of the arbitration hearing) does not demand a finding that the affidavit was false. See Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Trinity Christian Methodist Episcopal Church, 231 Ga.App. 617, 620 (2) ( 500 SE2d 374) (1998); compare Sweatt v. Intl. Dev. Corp., 242 Ga. App. 753, 755 (1) ( 531 SE2d 192) (2000) (arbitrator overstepped his authority by awarding actual damages where only liquidated damages were permitted under express terms of contract). 5. Doman charges the trial court with error in granting Stapleton's motion to quash his subpoena to procure the deposition of the arbitrator.
Georgia law provides that arbitrators cannot be required to testify as to their rationale or the reasoning behind their awards. Hood v. Garland, 476 S.E.2d 827 (Ga.App. 1996); Green v. Hundley, 468 S.E.2d 350 (Ga.App. 1996); Atlantic Gas Light Co. v. Trinity Christian Methodist Episcopal Church, 500 S.E.2d 374 (Ga.App. 1998). Federal law is consistent with Georgia law. E.G. Gramling v. Food Machinery and Chemical Corporation, 151 F.Supp. 853 (D.S.C. 1957).
Arbitrators are not required to state the reason for their award or to make any findings of fact. United Steel Workers of Am. v. Enter. Wheel Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593, 598 (1960); Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Trinity Christian Methodist Episcopal Church, 500 S.E.2d 374, 377 (Ga.Ct.App. 1998). Also, the record does not indicate that Brown L.L.P. requested the Georgia court make any findings.