In Burlage v. Superior Court (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 524, the arbitrator in a real property dispute refused to consider highly relevant evidence which would have been dispositive. The defendant filed a motion to vacate the arbitration award under section 1286.2, subdivision (a)(5) on the ground the arbitrator refused to consider material evidence during the arbitration hearing. (Burlage, at p. 528.) After the plaintiffs purchased a house from the defendant, they learned that the defendant failed to tell them that the swimming pool and a fence encroached upon land owned by a country club. (Burlage, supra, 178 Cal.App.4th at p. 527.) Before the arbitration on the dispute was held, the title company paid the country club for a lot-line adjustment that gave the plaintiffs clear title to the encroaching land. (Id. at pp. 527-528.) However, the arbitrator excluded evidence of the lot-line adjustment, and awarded the plaintiffs over $1.5 million in compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorney's fees and costs. (Id. at p. 528.) Burlage held that the trial court properly vacated the arbitration award, since the exclusion of evidence that the plaintiffs had suffered no damages substantially prejudiced the defendant. (Id. at p. 530.) The trial court granted the motion and vacated the award. On appeal the Burlage court affirmed the trial court ruling. (Ibid.) In reaching its holding, the Burlage court noted that "section 1286.2, subdivision (a)(5) provides that a court 'shall' vacate an award when a party's rights 'were substantially prejudiced . . . by the refusal of the arbitrator to hear evidence material to the controversy . . . .' This section has been interpreted as 'a safety valve in private arbitration that permits a court to intercede when an arbitrator has prevented a party from fairly presenting its case.'" (Burlage, supra, 178 Cal.App.4th at p. 529, quoting Hall v. Superior Court (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 427, 439.) The court in Burlage explained that the JAMS arbitrator was required to afford the parties the opportunity to present material and relevant evidence, and the failure to do so constituted substantial prejudice, requiring setting aside the arbitration award. (Id. at pp. 530-531.) The Court of Appeal and the trial court found the seller was prejudiced by the arbitrator's refusal to hear evidence concerning the lot-line adjustment. The lot-line adjustment resolved the encroachment problem and provided the seller with, what the Court of Appeal found was, an "Absolute defense." (Id. at 530.) The Court of Appeal concluded, "Without this crucial evidence, the arbitration assumed the nature of a default hearing in which the purchasers were awarded $1.5 million in compensatory and punitive damages they may not have suffered." (Ibid.) In Burlage, the arbitrator excluded evidence of the financial effects of the lot-line adjustment on the purchasers' damages. (Burlage v. Superior Court, supra, 178 Cal.App.4th at p. 528.) In sum, in Burlage v. Superior Court (2009) the plaintiffs purchased a home from the defendant and later sued upon discovering their swimming pool and fence encroached on an adjacent country club. During the litigation, a title insurance company paid the country club approximately $11,000 for a lot-line adjustment that gave the plaintiffs clear title to the encroaching property. Nonetheless, the plaintiffs continued to seek damages for the encroachment based on the alleged diminution of their property's value and the cost of moving the pool and fence. The arbitrator granted the plaintiffs' in limine motion to exclude all evidence regarding the lot-line adjustment because the arbitrator concluded damages must be measured from the date escrow closed. The arbitrator ultimately awarded the plaintiffs approximately $1.5 million in damages. The trial court vacated the arbitrator's award and the Court of Appeal affirmed. (Burlage, supra, 178 Cal.App.4th at pp. 527-528.) The Burlage court concluded the arbitrator substantially prejudiced the defendant's rights because the ruling excluding all evidence regarding the lot-line adjustment prevented the defendant from fairly presenting his defense, specifically, the defendant's ability to dispute the amount of the plaintiffs' damages. The ruling allowed the plaintiffs to offer expert testimony regarding the diminution in the value of their property and the cost to move the pool and fence, but barred the defendant from offering evidence showing the title company "fixed" the encroachment and therefore the plaintiffs did not suffer the damages they claimed. As the Burlage court explained, "it is self-evident the arbitrator's ruling excluding evidence that the title company solved the problem through a modest payment to the country club was more than a mere erroneous evidentiary ruling. . . . . . . Without this crucial evidence, the arbitration assumed the nature of a default hearing in which the plaintiffs were awarded $1.5 million in compensatory and punitive damages they may not have suffered." (Burlage, supra, 178 Cal.App.4th at p. 530.) The Burlage court also concluded the lot-line adjustment evidence was material: "What could be more material than evidence the problem was 'fixed' and there are no damages?" (Ibid.)