While the Supreme Court has put off hearing a more contentious arbitration case until the fall (presumably in hopes that it will have nine justices by then), tomorrow it will hear the nursing home arbitration case from Kentucky. I look forward to listening to the questions and trying to figure out why the Justices granted a review on the merits… Instead of repeating my analysis of the Kentucky case, here are some recent state court arbitration cases of interest (in addition to the three I posted about a few weeks ago).
West Virginia. Remember when West Virginia was the thorn in the FAA’s side? When it was the leader of the pack of anti-arbitration states? Well, not in West Virginia CVS Pharmacy v. McDowell Pharmacy, Inc., 2017 WL 562826 (W. Va. Feb. 9, 2017). The lower court had refused to compel arbitration of disputes between retail pharmacies and a pharmacy benefit management company. Applying West Virginia law, the lower court found there was no arbitration agreement, because the parties did not validly incorporate the manual that contained the arbitration provision. The West Virginia Supreme Court, however, applied Arizona law, as provided in the contract, and that made all the difference. It found the arbitration agreements were adequately incorporated, and that their reference to AAA rules was sufficient to delegate questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator. No cert likely here.
Missouri. The Supreme Court of Missouri took a safe bet in siding (partially) against the arbitrator in State ex rel Greitens, 2017 WL 587296 (Mo. Feb. 14, 2017), since the Supreme Court has denied cert petitions in many cases stemming from the master settlement agreement between states and tobacco companies. (E.g., this most recent one.) In this case, the state’s highest court found the arbitration panel exceeded its power when it deprived Missouri of its share of $50 Million in tobacco settlement payments for 2003. The case is too complicated to explain in this post, but know that this is one of those rare examples of a court modifying an arbitration award, as opposed to just confirming or vacating it. No cert likely here either.
Iowa. I never get to write about Iowa (which my daughter called “why-owa” after a long road trip through farm country), but its supreme court issued a decision in late 2016 about nursing home arbitration that merits mention here. In Roth v. Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society, 886 N.W.2d 601 (Iowa 2016), Iowa’s highest court answered a certified question from the federal district court. In short, it found that Iowa’s statutes do not require judicial resolution of loss of consortium cases, and in this case the children of the decedent were not bound by the decedent’s arbitration clause because the “claims belong to the adult children and they never personally agreed to arbitrate.” (Hard to make a bet on certiorari in this case, since it is headed back to federal trial court…)
Alabama. In Hanover Ins. Co. v. Kiva Lodge Condominium Owners’ Assoc., 2016 WL 5135201 (Ala. Oct. 21, 2016), the Supreme Court of Alabama found that when the parties adopted the following addendum to their contract, the first party who filed an action was able to dictate the forum: “Notwithstanding anything in this Addendum to the contrary, either party may pursue any claim or dispute in a court of law, or through mediation and arbitration.” That amended language was added to the parties’ A201 General Conditions, right after language indicating that “any claim arising out of or related to the Contract… may at the election of either party…be subject to arbitration.” After the condo association brought their claims in court and requested a referral to arbitration, the defendants argued that the case should stay in court. The trial court sent the claims to arbitration and the supreme court affirmed that result, finding “the addendum provides that once a party elects arbitration as a method for resolution of a dispute…the other party cannot neutralize that choice by insisting on litigation in court…In short, Kiva Lodge has proven the existence of a binding mandatory arbitration agreement between the parties.” This will not end up at the Supreme Court, but it’s an important drafting lesson for all of us.