We decline to substitute our judgment for that of the arbitration panel. As to defendants' next claim, that to bar rejection of an arbitration award is only proper if there is a violation of Supreme Court Rule 237, defendants cite to State Farm Insurance Co. v. Kazakova, 299 Ill.App.3d 1028, 234 Ill.Dec. 88, 702 N.E.2d 254 (1998). In Kazakova, this court reversed a trial court's decision to bar a rejection of an arbitration.
The express purpose of Rule 91(b) was to ‘prevent the abuse of the arbitration process and to uphold the integrity of the arbitration process.’ State Farm Insurance Co. v. Kazakova, 299 Ill.App.3d 1028, 1033 [234 Ill.Dec. 88, 702 N.E.2d 254] (1998), citing 145 Ill.2d R. 91(b), Committee Comments, at 1xx. The drafters' concern was with parties' intentional disregard for the arbitration process.
The point of Rule 91(b) is to "prevent the abuse of the arbitration process and to uphold the integrity of the arbitration process." State Farm Insurance Co. v. Kazakova, 299 Ill.App.3d 1028, 1033, 234 Ill.Dec. 88, 702 N.E.2d 254 (1998), citing 145 Ill.2d R. 91(b), Committee Comments, at 1xx. The appropriate inquiry is whether defendants participated in arbitration in good faith and in a meaningful manner.
This is a question of law and is reviewed de novo. State Farm Insurance Co. v. Kazakova, 299 Ill. App. 3d 1028, 1031 (1998). "Interpreting Supreme Court rules involves the same principles that are applicable when interpreting statutes. [Citation.] The primary rule of statutory construction is that the court should ascertain and give effect to the intent of the legislature."
However, to the extent that the issue here involves interpretation of a supreme court rule and the arbitrators' authority, these are questions of law subject to de novo review by this court. State Farm Insurance Co. v. Kazakova, 299 Ill. App. 3d 1028, 1031, 702 N.E.2d 254, 257 (1998). Plaintiff contends that the trial court did not apply the proper standard in finding that he was barred from rejecting the arbitration award.
Judicial interpretation of a Supreme Court Rule is a question of law. State Farm Insurance Co. v. Kazakova, 299 Ill.App.3d 1028, 1031, 234 Ill.Dec. 88, 702 N.E.2d 254, 257 (1998). This court reviews questions of law de novo.State Farm, 299 Ill.App.3d at 1031, 234 Ill.Dec. 88, 702 N.E.2d at 257.
145 Ill.2d R. 91(a), (b); Goldman, 307 Ill. App.3d at 172. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 237(b) (166 Ill.2d R. 237(b)), which is applicable to arbitration hearings (166 Ill.2d R. 90(g); State Farm Insurance Co. v. Kazakova, 299 Ill. App.3d 1028, 1032 (1998)), the court may impose sanctions against a party for failure to appear, including the debarment of a party from maintaining a claim pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 219(c). 166 Ill.2d Rule 219(c)(iii); 166 Ill.2d R. 90(g). A party who appears through counsel is still subject to sanctions for failure to appear pursuant to a Rule 237 notice.
In conjunction with this argument, defendant contends that the court could have imposed alternative sanctions that would have been less harsh, such as barring his testimony at trial or assessing fees and costs. Where a party to mandatory arbitration proceedings appeals from sanctions imposed, the standard of review is an abuse of discretion.State Farm Insurance Co. v. Kazakova, 299 Ill. App.3d 1028, 1031, 702 N.E.2d 254 (1998). An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court rules arbitrarily.
Generally, the decision to bar a party from rejecting an arbitration award is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. See Easter Seal Rehabilitation Center for Will-Grundy Counties, Inc. v. Current Development Corp., 307 Ill. App.3d 48, 716 N.E.2d 809 (1999); State Farm Insurance Co. v. Kazakova, 299 Ill. App.3d 1028, 702 N.E.2d 254 (1998). Where, however, the issue involves an interpretation of the Supreme Court Rules, it is a question of law subject to de novo review by this court.
The purposes of the supreme court rules on mandatory arbitration are to prevent abuse in the arbitration process and to uphold the integrity of the arbitration process. State Farm Insurance Co. v. Kazakova, 299 Ill. App.3d 1028, 1033, 702 N.E.2d 254, 257 (1998). As the Committee Comments to Rule 91 state: