(a) An arbitrator may award punitive damages or other exemplary relief if such an award is authorized by law in a civil action involving the same claim and the evidence produced at the hearing justifies the award under the legal standards otherwise applicable to the claim.

(b) An arbitrator may award reasonable attorney's fees and other reasonable expenses of arbitration if such an award is authorized by law in a civil action involving the same claim or by the agreement of the parties to the arbitration proceeding.

(c) As to all remedies other than those authorized by Subsections (a) and (b), an arbitrator may order such remedies as the arbitrator considers just and appropriate under the circumstances of the arbitration proceeding. The fact that such a remedy could not or would not be granted by the court is not a ground for refusing to confirm an award under Section 23 [44-7A-23 NMSA 1978] or for vacating an award under Section 24 [44-7A-24 NMSA 1978].

(d) An arbitrator's expenses and fees, together with other expenses, must be paid as provided in the award.

(e) If an arbitrator awards punitive damages or other exemplary relief under Subsection (a), the arbitrator shall specify in the award the basis in fact justifying and the basis in law authorizing the award and state separately the amount of the punitive damages or other exemplary relief.

History: Laws 2001, ch. 227, § 22.

Compiler's note. — Laws 2002, ch. 227, § 33 repealed the former Uniform Arbitration Act, Sections 44-7-1 to 44-7-22 NMSA 1978, enacted by Laws 1971, ch. 168, §23. The Uniform Arbitration Act compiled as 44-7A-1 to 44-7A-32 NMSA 1978 was enacted effective July 1, 2001.

Attorney fees. — The district court has the authority to award attorney fees on appeal even if an arbitration panel lacked the authority to do so. Aguilera v. Palm Harbor Homes, Inc., 2004-NMCA-120, 136 N.M. 422, 99 P.3d 672, cert. denied, 2004-NMCERT-010, 136 N.M. 541, 101 P.3d 807.

Public policy supports punitive damages. — Although former 44-7-1 NMSA 1978 et seq. did not specifically authorize punitive damages awards, the strong public policy in favor of alternative resolution of disputes requires that arbitrators be authorized to award such damages when they are otherwise permitted by law and are supported by the facts. Aguilera v. Palm Harbor Homes, Inc., 2001-NMCA-091, 131 N.M. 228, 34 P.3d 617, aff'd, 2002-NMSC-029, 132 N.M. 715, 54 P.3d 993.

Arbitrators authorized to suggest appropriate amount of punitive damages. — The arbitration panel did not exceed its powers where, in a dispute between an insured and the automobile insurance company, it suggested the appropriate amount of punitive damages to be assessed, if the proper court determined that punitive damages should be awarded. Stewart v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 1986-NMSC-073, 104 N.M. 744, 726 P.2d 1374.

Apportionment of arbitration costs. — The uninsured motorists' insurance statute and the New Mexico Arbitration Act are not in a state of repugnant conflict on the issue of apportionment of arbitration costs. The Arbitration Act merely encompasses the uninsured motorists' insurance statute; it allows the arbitrator to award costs of arbitration to the prevailing party (as does the uninsured motorists' insurance statute) unless the parties contract to award it in some other way. This distinction is not enough to warrant a repeal by implication and does not make the acts irreconcilable. Stinbrink v. Farmers Ins. Co., 1990-NMSC-108, 111 N.M. 179, 803 P.2d 664.

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 4 Am. Jur. 2d. Alternative Dispute Resolution §§ 173 et seq., 218 et seq.

6 C.J.S. Arbitration §§ 75, 107, 179 et seq.