similar conclusion regarding a similar statute. HRS § 431:10-242 provides that when an insurer is ordered by the comts to pay a beneficiary, the beneficiary shall be awarded attorneys’ fees and costs of the suit. The Supreme Court of Hawaii concluded that HRS § 431:10-242 did not apply to an arbitration award. Labrador v. Liberty Mut. Group, 103 Hawai'i 206, 81 P.3d 386, 391 (2003). The arbitrator was aware of the Supreme Court of Hawaii’s holding in Labrador because it was referenced in Petitioner’s memorandum to the arbitrator. (Pet’r Opp’n Ex. 1 at 7-9.) Therefore, the arbitrator did not manifestly disregard the law when determining that interest on an award (not judgment) was within its scope of authority. See also Kalawaia v. AIG Hawaii Ins. Co., 90 Hawaii 167, 977 P.2d 175 (1999) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, Respondent explicitly availed
holding that the ninth circuit looks to state contract law to determine whether an arbitration award is valid holding that award and rate of prejudgment interest are within trial courts discretion holding that the state circuit court did not have the authority to award prejudgment interest for matters occurring prior to arbitration award holding that arbitration award is binding on the parties holding that rule 60a is the proper vehicle for correcting a judgment in order to provide for an award of prejudgment interest where among other things governing law would make the interest award automatic or the district court clearly intended to make the interest award in its prior order