a “finding” within the meaning of the statute, so that, a fortiori interest must be assessed and added by the arbitrator, and in any event, by the Court. The Court disagrees. If the arbitrator’s award is silent with respect to pre-award interest, and such silence is the product of a failure of the prevailing party to have requested consideration of the issue, it should be presumed, in the absence of countervailing evidence, that interest was waived. See Reilly v. Metropolitan Property & Liability Ins. Co., 412 Mass. 1006 (1992). The Court will assume, “in the absence of an explicit agreement to the contraiy, pre-award damage claims, including interest, to have been submitted to arbitration.” Id.; see also Sansone v. Metropolitan Property & Liability Ins. Co., 30 Mass.App.Ct. 660 (1991) (<HOLDING>). Ryan’s award having been silent as to
holding that plaintiffs personal injury action against other driver in auto accident was not precluded by arbitration award between insurance carriers regarding damage to plaintiffs car because plaintiff did not participate in or control arbitration was not a party to arbitration agreement did not adopt agreement or attempt to benefit from agreement holding that when plaintiff sought arbitration and neither the award nor the arbitration agreement mentioned interest the plaintiff was not entitled to preaward interest holding that proposed invalidation of the entire arbitration agreement even if the court were convinced that the plaintiff could not afford to pay for the arbitration proceedings was unnecessarily radical because the court could instead simply nullify the fee provisions of the arbitration agreement and force the defendant employer to bear the expense of arbitration holding that where the arbitration agreement was silent on feesplitting and the costs imposed upon the plaintiff by the aaa were not prohibitive the plaintiff had presented little evidence to indicate that arbitration would be prohibitively expensive and the fees and costs of arbitration did not render the arbitration scheme unconscionable holding that the federal arbitration act requires piecemeal resolution when necessary to give effect to an arbitration agreement and mandates enforcement of an arbitration agreement notwithstanding the presence of other persons who are parties to the underlying dispute but not to the arbitration agreement emphasis added