arbitrator was simply finishing his assignment by making a complete and full

award on the matters submitted to him for resolution.

It has been suggested that the ancient rule of functus officio requires the
award to be vacated under the circumstances we face here. That rule survives,
but just barely, to bar arbitrators from revisiting and changing complete awards,
i.e., awards where they in fact decided all the issues presented to them. But
cases holding that an incomplete award is a nullity and must be vacated were
generally decided before Columbia’s Arbitration Act and the Supreme Court’s
instruction that the courts indulge every reasonable intendment to give effect to
arbitration proceedings. To deny arbitrators the authority to complete their task
under such circumstances elevates form over substance.
We conclude Columbia’s contractual arbitration law permits arbitrators to
issue an amended award to resolve an issue omitted from the original award
through the mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect of the arbitrator if the
amendment is made before judicial confirmation of the original award, is not
inconsistent with other findings on the merits of the controversy, and does not
cause demonstrable prejudice to the legitimate interests of any party.
This opinion should not be read to condone the actions of Classic's
counsel in communicating ex parte with the arbitrator. Counsel's ex parte
communications were inappropriate, and under different, more egregious
circumstances, might require vacation of an arbitration award.
The judgment is affirmed.