see also White, 369 S.W.3d at 915. Under section 11 of the FAA, a court may modif ation award, it must do so only “to effect the intent [of the award] and promote justice between the parties.” 9 U.S.C. § 11. A party seeking to modify an arbitration award bears the ultimate burden of proving the grounds for modification. White, 369 S.W.3d at 916. Here, the arbitrator expressly found in the award, “I do not find a reason to pierce the corporate veil and impose individual liability on Mr. Broemer for the three percentage cases.” The trial court’s modification imposing joint and several liability upon Broemer for the entire amount of the award conflicts with that finding, and HLRS did not demonstrate that any of the statutory grounds allowed the modification. See White, 369 S.W.3d at 916 (<HOLDING>); Kosty v. S. Shore Harbour Cmty. Ass’n, 226
holding that one should not be allowed to circumvent arbitration by nonsuiting a party that would subject the matter to arbitration holding that arbitration award is binding on the parties holding no statutory grounds allowed trial court to modify arbitration award to dismiss claims against party holding that trial court properly denied motion to compel arbitration of claims for fraud and unfair and deceptive trade practices because arbitration clause in agreement only applied to indemnification claims and there were no other arbitration clauses in agreement holding that to establish grounds for reversal an appellant must challenge all grounds on which the trial court ruled against it