United States: An Official Exception To Functus Officio: American Arbitrators Can Alter Their Own Ambiguous Awards

Last Updated: December 28 2018
Article by The International Arbitration Blog and Scott Robinson


On November 28, 2018, in General Re Life Corp. v. Lincoln National Life Insurance, No. 17-2496 (2d Cir. 2018), the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals joined the Third, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits to recognize a formal exception to the doctrine of functus officio: where an arbitration award is ambiguous, arbitrators retain their jurisdiction and authority to clarify, and thus alter, that award. 1 On this precedent, arbitrators can do so even over the objection of parties to the dispute. Arbitrators are permitted do so as long as it meets the three-part test: (1) the final award is ambiguous; (2) the clarification merely clarifies the award, rather than substantively modifies or rewrites it; and (3) the clarification comports with the parties' intent as set forth in the agreement that gave rise to arbitration.

It now appears to be settled federal law in the U.S. that an exception to functus officio exists where an arbitral award fails to address a contingency that later arises, or when the award is susceptible to more than one interpretation. In such circumstances, it falls to the arbitrator or panel itself – not a reviewing court on appeal – to resolve the issue by retaining jurisdiction to do so. As the Second Circuit noted, this narrow rule is intended to further the goals of arbitration to settle disputes efficiently and avoid long and expensive litigation.

Background and the Decision

The underlying matter concerned a Reinsurance Agreement between the parties, which allowed General Re to increase premiums only if the increase was founded on a "change in anticipated mortality". 2 If premiums were increased, Lincoln could "recapture" its life insurance policies, rather than pay increased premiums. When the premiums were increased, Lincoln elected to arbitrate whether there had been a "change in anticipated mortality". The Reinsurance Agreement itself provided for such arbitration.

The arbitration panel found a "change in anticipated mortality" such that premiums had been legitimately increased. The arbitral award directed that if Lincoln then chose to "recapture" its policies, all premium and claim transactions paid by one party to the other following the effective date of the recapture were to be unwound. It expressly noted that any disagreement over the calculations of amounts owed should be submitted to the panel for resolution. In its own view, the panel broadly retained "jurisdiction over this matter to the extent necessary to resolve any dispute over the calculation and payment of the amounts awarded".3

Lincoln exercised its right to recapture. The parties differed on how to read the unwinding language in the arbitral award. Lincoln moved for the panel to clarify the issue; General Re argued to confirm the original award without a clarification. A majority of the panel found the award contained "ambiguities requiring clarification" and issued a formal clarification ("Clarification"), finding that both parties were wrong in their reading of the award in relation to the Reinsurance Agreement.4 The panel disposed of the matter accordingly. Upon petition, the district court confirmed the Clarification.

On appeal in the Second Circuit, General Re argued, among other things, that the doctrine of functus officio prevented the arbitration panel from altering its award. Typically, this doctrine holds that once arbitrators have fully exercised their authority to adjudicate the issues submitted to them, their authority over those questions is ended, and the arbitrators have no further authority, absent agreement by the parties, to re-determine those issues. The Second Circuit noted that in an arbitration context, "[t]he traditional rationale underlying this rule is that it is necessary to prevent re-examination of an issue by a non-judicial officer potentially subject to outside communication and unilateral influence".5 (Note this departs from the typical rationale when functus officio is invoked in a formal court context, where the classical purpose of the doctrine is to allow finality of judgments from courts which are subject to appeal and provide litigants a stable basis from which to launch an appeal).6

The Second Circuit affirmed the district court, thereby confirming the Clarification. By doing so, it endorsed a common law exception to functus officio such that an arbitrator can clarify or construe an arbitration award that seems complete but proves to be ambiguous in its scope and implementation, when the three-part test noted above is met.


This U.S. common law development now appears firmly entrenched, and its significance is multifold, each worthy of comment:

  • On one hand, it likely leads to an increase in judicial economy and efficiency. Allowing the parties and arbitrators to clarify issues relating to an arbitral award on a narrow, common sense basis, without the need for a reviewing court to intervene, has the potential to save time, expenses, and resources for all those involved. Moreover, by default – for better or for worse – it could also decrease the number of arbitral awards that are subject to a court's opinion, thus maintaining the confidentiality that often underlies arbitrations.
  • On the other hand, it raises concerns about the judicial recognition of finality in arbitral proceedings. The scope and confines of this functus officio exception remain somewhat unclear. It is difficult to say precisely what constitutes 'ambiguity' and mere 'clarification' as opposed to 'modification'. Further, the parties may differ on the intent as set forth in the agreement that gave rise to arbitration, rendering it difficult to determine whether the 'clarification' comports with that intent, and thus requiring a more in-depth analysis by the arbitrator than envisioned when assessing a 'clarification'. The more in-depth the analysis becomes, the more the arbitrator begins to resemble a reviewing court assessing its own substantive judgment. Ultimately, the more this analysis becomes a case-by-case assessment, the less this exception to functus officio resembles an actual carve-out that is equally applicable in all circumstances.

In any event, claimants and respondents alike in arbitrations, with matters that may be subject to the jurisdiction of U.S. federal district courts, should make note of this now seemingly settled principle. It could both procedurally and substantively impact how an arbitral award unfolds. Should the parties find themselves potentially subject to such a scenario, a related issue concerns a need to consider whether the operative arbitration agreement or rules already provide a procedure for such a 'clarification' to be made, but perhaps on different terms, or with different boundaries, as compared to that provided for under the common law. In the event of a conflict between the two, it might be said the agreement or rules pertaining to the issue should prevail, depending on what their legal status may be. But given the potentially sweeping impact of this now-well-settled common law exception, perhaps that answer is less clear.

Implications for International Arbitration Law

From an international arbitration law perspective, such an exception in U.S. federal courts could have consequences for parties to internationally-constituted or seated arbitrations. It is no secret that by virtue of, for example, the 1958 United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (commonly the "New York Convention"), a bedrock of the international arbitration system, and its sweeping codification into U.S. federal statute (9 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.), U.S. federal courts lie as a common repository with broad jurisdiction for enforcement of arbitration agreements and awards all over the world. Should an ambiguous award from an internationally-constituted or seated arbitrator find its way subject to the reach of U.S. federal courts, it is worth questioning whether this common law exception would cause that U.S. federal court to remand that award to the international seat from which it came pending clarification before enforcement. It is indeed difficult to enforce an award that cannot otherwise be understood.

Another related question perhaps concerns a hypothetical scenario whereby the ambiguous award emanates from an international seat with legislation or rules that prohibit clarifications or similar alterations to be made to the award by the arbitrator once the award is given. In that scenario, it is questionable whether the foreign law or principle to this effect would take precedent in a U.S. federal court, or whether the common law exception in U.S. law would override in a U.S. federal court.

The bottom line is that if an arbitral award could be subject to U.S. federal court jurisdiction, for whatever reason, the parties would be wise to view the finality of that award in light of this common law exception to functus officio now established in U.S. federal courts. 

Implications for Canadian Arbitration Law

From a Canadian arbitration law perspective, there is no known Canadian authority as expressly equivalent to this judicially-recognized exception to functus officio in U.S. jurisprudence. The prevailing view in Canada at this point appears to be the Supreme Court of Canada's comments in Chandler v. Assn. of Architects (Alberta), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 848:

The doctrine of functus officio states that an adjudicator, be it an arbitrator, an administrative tribunal or a court, once it has reached its decision cannot afterwards alter its award except to correct clerical mistakes or errors arising from an accidental slip or omission ... "To allow the adjudicator to again deal with the matter of its own volition without hearing the entire matter 'afresh' is contrary to this doctrine"[.]7

The Supreme Court's view may appear more conservative as compared to the scope of the exception to functus officio recently endorsed by the Second Circuit. However, in Chandler, the Supreme Court also stated that "the principle should not be strictly applied" where an enabling statute permits the decision to be reopened in order to enable a tribunal to discharge the function committed to it by enabling legislation.8 This flexibility may also extend to a private arbitration agreement if its terms specified as much.

The Supreme Court's recognition that the doctrine of functus officio should be applied flexibly and not strictly could perhaps be interpreted as the Canadian equivalent of the exception to functus officio endorsed in U.S. federal courts. If so, this general common law view would go further than what is currently reflected in certain statutes in Canada on this issue. In Ontario, for example, under Article 33 of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration adopted by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, being Schedule A to the International Commercial Arbitration Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.9, a party "may request the arbitral tribunal to give an interpretation of a specific point or part of the award" - but only "if so agreed by the parties ... with notice to the other party".


1 General Re Life Corp v Lincoln National Life Insurance, No. 17-2496 (2d Cir. 2018) ["Second Circuit Decision"].

2 Second Circuit Decision, supra at page 3.

3 Second Circuit Decision, supra at page 5.

4 Second Circuit Decision, supra at page 7.

5 Second Circuit Decision, supra at page 10.

6 See e.g. comments in Doucet-Boudreau v. Nova Scotia (Minister of Education), 2003 SCC 62 at para. 79.

7 Chandler v Assn. of Architects (Alberta), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 848 at 867 (Justice L'Heureux-Dubé in dissent, but uncontroversial on this general point with respect to arbitrators).

8 Chandler v Assn. of Architects (Alberta), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 848 at 862 (Justice Sopinka for the majority).

To view the original article please click here.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (UK) LLP
In association with
Practice Guides
by Mondaq Advice Centers
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (UK) LLP
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions