Have you heard of the “summer slide“?  It’s the name for how students forget information they learned during the school year over summer vacation, but it’s equally apt for grown ups.  I definitely feel a little less smart when I am reading vampire novels by the pool in 95 degree heat.

Anyhow, Arbitration Nation to the rescue.  We are here to ensure no one loses their sharpness on the Federal Arbitration Act over the summer.  Today’s reminder: the general rule is that an arbitration agreement can only be enforced by the parties to that agreement.  And how better to timely bring that lesson to life than with an international pop star and a World Cup contest?!

Before the last World Cup, Sony sponsored a song-writing contest.  It invited entrants to submit an original song and music video, with a promise that the winning composition would be on the official World Cup Album.  (Didn’t know there was such a thing?  Check out the songs.)  The plaintiff in this case submitted his song, but did not win.  About two years later, Ricky Martin (who had been involved with the World Cup contest) released the song “Vida.”  Plaintiff alleged that the “Vida” music video was similar to plaintiff’s contest video and violated federal copyright/trademark laws.

In response, Ricky Martin moved to compel arbitration.  He relied on the arbitration agreement in the contest rules.  The district court granted his motion, noting that Martin was a third-party beneficiary and referenced in many parts of the contest terms.  On appeal, however, the First Circuit reversed, finding Ricky Martin was a non-signatory who did not fit any exception to the general rule.  Cortes-Ramos v. Martin-Morales, 2018 WL 3134601 (1st Cir. June 27, 2018). In finding no clarity that the contracting parties intended to make the singer a third-party beneficiary, the appellate court focused on two things: the carve-out language in the arbitration agreement which implied that the only parties were the entrants and the co-sponsors; and references to Martin in other parts of the contest rules, but not in the arbitration agreement (suggesting the drafters knew how to reference him when they wanted to).

Nobody Wants To Be Lonely, of course, so let’s be sure to point out that other non-signatories have lost bids to compel arbitration recently:

  • In Olshan Foundation Repair Company of Jackson, LLC v. Moore, 2018 WL 3153353 (Miss. June 28, 2018), a contractor lost its effort to compel arbitration with the daughter of its customers.  The contract was between the contactor and the parents to repair the foundation of the parents’ home.  But the adult daughter also sued the contractor for her emotional distress after the repairs went awry.  The court found she was not a third-party or direct beneficiary of the contract and that estoppel was not appropriate because the daughter’s claims did not rely on the terms of the contract.
  • In Jody James Farms v. The Altman Group, Inc., 2018 WL 2168306 (Tex. May 11, 2018), an insurance agency lost its effort to prove that the arbitration agreement in the insurance policy between the insured and insurer also covered the independent agent.  The court began by finding that incorporating the AAA rules does *not* show a clear and unmistakable intent to arbitrate arbitrability (unlike this 8th Cir. case and most others), so that the court did not have to defer to the jurisdictional ruling already made by the arbitrator.  On the merits, the court found that the insurance policy treated arbitration as only between the insured and insurer, and that the insurance agent also did not prove application of the exceptions for agency (!), third-party beneficiary, or estoppel.
  • In Huckaba v. Ref-Chem, L.P., 2018 WL 2921137 (5th Cir. June 11, 2018), an employer lost its effort to compel arbitration of a former employee’s claims.  In a wake up call for employers everywhere, the employer lost because it did not counter-sign the employment agreement.  The court found that under Texas law, the parties intended not to be bound unless both parties signed the agreement.  They demonstrated that intent by: including a signature block for the employer, noting that “by signing this agreement the parties are giving up any right they may have to sue each other,” and requiring any modifications be signed by all parties.

Okay, today’s refresher course is complete.  Go back to your summer fun.

The last post focused on three recent state appellate court decisions that refused to compel arbitration or vacated an award, and this follow-up post focuses on seven recent cases that are friendly to arbitration.

My favorite is from Montana.  Although none of its arbitration decisions have been addressed by SCOTUS, Montana decided to preempt any federal preemption issues by adjusting its stance on unconscionability.  (It waited five years after the 9th Circuit put it on notice, though.)  Lenz v. FSC Sec. Corp., 2018 WL 1603927 (Mont. April 3, 2018), involves claims by investors against investment advisors over “substantial losses.”  The defendants moved to compel arbitration and the district court granted the motion.  On appeal, the Montana Supreme Court affirmed.  In its decision, it took the opportunity to clarify that the previous test it had used to determine unconscionability was improper, because it mixed unconscionability analysis with the reasonable expectations doctrine from the insurance context.  (Read this mea culpa: “We have continued to perpetuate confusion by inaccurately referencing [bad tests for unconscionability] …Even more problematic in particular regard to arbitration agreements, we have failed to recognize the manifest incompatibility of the insurance-specific reasonable expectations doctrine as a generally applicable contract principle.”)  I read that as “we do not want to be reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court.”

The others can be reviewed more quickly:

  • Substantive unconscionability cannot be established by showing only that the arbitration agreement is broad in scope.  SCI Alabama Funeral Servs. v. Hinton, 2018 WL 1559795 (Ala. March 30, 2018) [I’m a bit surprised that needed clarifying];
  • The Federal Arbitration Act applies to arbitration agreements within a common interest community’s covenants (and preempts conflicting state law).  In U.S. Home Corp. v. The Michael Ballesteros Trust, 2018 WL 1755536 (Nev. April 12, 2018), 12 homeowners argued that the FAA did not apply to the arbitration agreement in their covenants because land is traditionally a local concern.  The court found that the covenants’ larger purpose was to facilitate the creation of a community of multiple homes, and multiple out-of-state business contributed to construction of the homes.  Therefore, the FAA controlled and preempted Nevada rules requiring the same procedures as in court and requiring arbitration agreements to be more conspicuous than other text in a contract;
  • Non-signatories may compel arbitration if the plaintiff’s claims are based on facts that are “intertwined” with arbitrable claims.  Melendez v. Horning, 2018 WL 1191150 (N.D. March 8, 2018) (reversing district court order denying motion to compel arbitration);
  • Scope of arbitration agreement broad enough to encompass claims against related entity.  Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations v. Adams, 2018 WL 1355966 (Ala. March 16, 2018), concluded that where the employee’s arbitration agreement was with the “Company,” which was defined to include affiliate and related companies, the employee’s suit against a related company was arbitrable;
  • Arbitrator did not manifestly disregard contractual language in construction contract.  In ABC Building Corp. v. Ropolo Family, 2018 WL 1309761 (R.I. Mar. 14, 2018), the owner tried to vacate an arbitration award in favor of the general contractor.  It relied on contract language requiring submission of payroll records with payment applications in order to argue that the contractor could not receive additional compensation for labor without having provided that contemporaneous documentation.  However, the arbitrator considered that provision of the contract in his decision-making (and the owner had never complained), so vacatur was inappropriate (one judge dissented);
  • Delegation clause must be enforced if not specifically challenged.  Family Dollar Stores of W. Va. v. Tolliver, 2018 WL 1074947 (Feb. 27, 2018).  I know, it’s a stretch to call this one a spring decision.  But, it’s snowing in Minnesota on April 14th, so my seasons are totally confused.  That’s why we call it “Minnesnowta.”

 

A new Seventh Circuit case answers the age-old question: if a fourteen-year-old swipes her mom’s credit card to complete a smoothie purchase at the mall, is she bound to the credit card agreement?

The case, A.D. v. Credit One Bank, N.A., __ F.3d __, 2018 WL 1414907 (Mar. 22. 2018), addressed whether the lead plaintiff in a putative TCPA class action was bound to an arbitration agreement.  The lead plaintiff was a teenager when the case was filed, and she alleged that the defendant bank called her cell phone multiple times to collect on her mother’s credit card debt.  (A practice which is precluded by the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).)  During the course of discovery, the defendant bank realized that it had linked the teenager’s cell phone number to the mother’s credit card account when the mother used the teen’s cell phone to call the defendant.   It also discovered that the teenager had completed a few smoothie purchases at the mall using her mother’s credit card.  The defendant bank then made a motion to compel arbitration  (and to deny class certification) based on the arbitration agreement in the mother’s cardholder agreement.  The district court granted the motion, but the Seventh Circuit reversed.

On appeal, the Seventh Circuit tried to clear up any ambiguity in its previous treatment of cases regarding non-signatories.  It established two analytical steps needed to resolve the arbitrability question: whether the daughter is directly bound by the arbitration agreement; and if not, whether any of the arguments for binding non-signatories apply.

With respect to whether the daughter was bound by the plain language of the arbitration agreement, the Court had no trouble concluding she was not.   The arbitration agreement specifically applied to claims made by authorized users of the account.  The district court had relied on one sentence in the paragraph defining “Authorized Users” of the card: “If you allow someone to use your Account, that person will be an Authorized User.”  That, plus the fact that the mother had ordered smoothies, but then sent her daughter up to the counter to swipe the credit card when the smoothies were ready, led the district court to conclude the daughter was an “authorized user” bound by the cardholder agreement.  The appellate court, however, noted that the full definition of Authorized User required multiple steps for someone to qualify, none of which had been completed for the teenage plaintiff.  Furthermore, the cardholder agreement limited authorized users to people over fifteen, and the relevant state law also did not allow fourteen-year-olds to enter into binding contracts.    Therefore, the Seventh Circuit found the “terms of the cardholder agreement do not bind” the teenage plaintiff.

With respect to the second analytical step, the Court found the principles of equitable estoppel (which can bind non-signatories to arbitration agreement) did not bind the daughter to the cardholder agreement.  Critically, equitable estoppel requires the bank to prove that the teenage daughter received a “direct benefit” from the cardholder agreement.  In this case, the bank’s whole argument hinged on the smoothie.  [I wonder if there was testimony about how much it cost, and how delicious it was!  Did it have vitamin boosters?!]  And the Court was not impressed.  It reasoned:

“any ‘benefit’ that [daughter] received with respect to the credit card was limited to following her mother’s directions to pick up the smoothies that her mother had ordered previously. . . Her mother, [] benefited from the agreement, which allowed her, not [the daughter] to buy the smoothies.”

The Court also concluded that the class action claims did not seek benefits under the cardholder agreement, which would have been a separate basis for estoppel.

As a result, the Seventh Circuit reversed the decision to grant the motion to compel arbitration and directed the district court to reconsider its denial of the class certification as well.

 

Whenever people ask me why I choose arbitration law to write and talk about, one of the reasons I give is that the law is in flux, creating a demand for information and analysis.  Despite the fact that the Federal Arbitration Act has been around for over 90 years, there are constantly new developments in its interpretation.  Especially in the past two decades, with the Supreme Court highly engaged in the enforcement of arbitration agreements, the pace of legal development has quickened.  That pace means that litigants, advocates, arbitrators and judges are struggling to keep up.  It also means that even on recurring issues, there is still a lack of consensus on how to apply the rules that have been developed.

To demonstrate this point, I went back through the important cases from 2017.  I found multiple instances where two cases with very similar facts received opposite results.  And I am not talking about circuit splits over novel issues like the NLRB and “wholly groundless” exception.  I am talking about issues like formation, waiver, and non-signatories, where the “rules” have ostensibly been settled for some time.

Two Tales of Non-Signatories

These two cases involve a bank teaming up with a retail entity to issue branded credit cards that offered rewards.  The credit card agreement, which called for arbitration of disputes, was only between the consumers and the banks, however. In each case, plaintiffs sued the retail entity regarding the card and the retail entity moved to compel arbitration as a non-signatory to the credit card agreement.  In one case, White v. Sunoco, Inc., 2017 WL 3864616 (3d Cir. Sept. 5, 2017), the retail entity’s motion was denied.  In the other, Bluestem Brands, Inc. v. Shade, 2017 WL 4507090 (W. Va. Oct. 6, 2017), the retail entity’s motion was granted.  While these cases depend on the laws of different states, the courts were applying the same general estoppel rules, but reaching opposite results.

Two Tales of Waiver

Whether a party has waived its contractual right to arbitrate is an issue that comes up regularly.  Yet it remains surprisingly hard to predict whether a court will find waiver or not on any set of circumstances.

These two cases involve lenders bringing collection actions in state court for credit card debts.  In both, they were granted a default judgment.  And in both, the credit card holder later sued for problems with the collection efforts.  In response to that suit, the lenders moved to compel arbitration.  In one case, Cain v. Midland Funding, LLC, 156 A.3d 807 (Md. Mar. 24, 2017), the court denied the motion to compel, finding the lender had waived its rights.  In the other, Hudson v. Citibank, 387 P.3d 42 (Alaska Dec. 16, 2016), the court granted the motion to compel, finding the lender did not waive its rights.  In both cases, the analysis turned on whether the default action and later action were sufficiently related.

Two Tales of Formation

All of us do more and more of our business over mobile devices and the internet, where we don’t physically sign our name to contracts, and in fact we generally don’t read the terms and conditions.  That leads to hard legal questions over when a contract is validly formed and what terms the parties agreed to.

In these two cases, consumers have little or no choice between providers.  In order to sign up for the service, they receive one message.  In the first case, the message is “your account…[is] governed by the terms of use at [defendant’s website].”  In the second case, the message is “by creating an [] account, you agree to the TERMS OF SERVICE & PRIVACY POLICY.”  The consumers did not have to take any affirmative act to consent to the terms other than proceeding to set up their account.  In both cases, consumers later sued the provider and the providers moved to compel arbitration based on the terms available at their websites.  The consumers responded by arguing the parties had not validly formed any arbitration agreement.

In the first case, the provider was not successful in compelling arbitration.  James v. Global Tellink Corp., 852 F.3d 262 (3d Cir. Mar. 29, 2017).  In the second case, the provider was successful in compelling arbitration.  Meyer v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 868 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. Aug. 17, 2017).  Can it be that the wording difference between “your account.. is governed” and “by creating an account, you agree” explains the outcomes?  Or the fact that the consumers in the Uber case could have just clicked on the terms from the same device they were using to set up the account, while the prisoners in the first case would have had to hang up their telephones, find a computer and find the website?  The cases really give us no assistance in figuring that out.

Maybe every area of law has similar issues regarding the predictability of decisions.  But arbitration law is rife with legal “rules” to guide decision making that are so flexible as to hardly constitute rules at all.  And courts have not yet applied those rules enough times to allow them to develop a systemic approach, with internal consistency between the decisions.  And I predict that will only get worse, not better, as consumers and employees find new and creative ways to challenge arbitration agreements.

The “Summer of Arbitration” draws to a close tomorrow, if you can believe it.  (On the first day of fall, it is supposed to be 91 degrees in Minnesota.  Yikes.)  But before I close that chapter, let’s take a look at a theme that emerged in these last weeks: non-signatories losing their attempts to compel arbitration (see last post).

In one case, Google’s self-driving car project, Waymo, sued Uber (and others) for misappropriating trade secrets.  Waymo LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 2017 WL 4018404 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 13, 2017).  Although no defendant had an arbitration agreement with Waymo, they moved to compel arbitration based on an arbitration agreement between Waymo and its former employee.   (The employee allegedly brought the secrets to Uber after downloading 14,000 Waymo files.  That is a lot of thumb drives.)  Defendants argued that equitable estoppel applied to compel arbitration, because the source of the claims was the employee’s breach of his employment agreement.  However, the district court  and appellate court found the complaint did not allege any breach of the employment agreement, and did not rely on or use the terms of the employment agreement as the foundation of its claims.  Therefore, Waymo did not have to abide by the terms of the arbitration clause in the employment agreement.

Non-signatories got the same result in White v. Sunoco, Inc., 2017 WL 3864616 (3d Cir. Sept. 5, 2017).  In that case, a putative class of plaintiffs sued Sunoco, alleging fraud and misrepresentations induced them to get a Sunoco Rewards Card from Citibank.  The plaintiffs alleged they were promised rewards like a five cent/gallon discount on gas purchases, but they did not receive the rewards.  Sunoco moved to compel arbitration based on the credit card agreement between the plaintiffs and Citibank.  The district court denied the motion and the Third Circuit affirmed.  Critically, it found that neither of the situations were present that support applying equitable estoppel: concerted conduct between the Sunoco and Citibank; or plaintiff’s reliance on the credit card agreement.  However, the dissenting judge found that the promotional materials should be considered an integrated agreement with the credit card, such that Sunoco was a party to the deal.

Again in In Re Henson, 2017 WL 3862458 (9th Cir. Sept. 5, 2017), the non-signatory was unable to compel arbitration.  Verizon customers brought a claim against a “middle man” for internet advertisements; that middle man had contracted with Verizon to collect data from users’ mobile devices and then deliver targeted advertisements to them.  The middle man moved to compel arbitration based on the customers’ arbitration agreement with Verizon.  The district court granted the motion based on equitable estoppel, and the plaintiff asked the court of appeals for a writ of mandamus to vacate the order.  The Ninth Circuit found the relevant factors weighed “heavily in favor” of granting the writ.  The key factors in favor of vacating the order compelling arbitration were: the fact that the plaintiff could not arbitrate in a representative or class capacity; the district court erred in finding equitable estoppel because the claims against the middle man did not rely on terms from Verizon’s customer agreement, and there were no allegations of collusion.

So, is equitable estoppel losing favor with the courts, or are defendants just trying to use it in situations where it doesn’t belong?

In a decision that is very skinny on the facts, a unanimous Nevada Supreme Court recently un-vacated a significant arbitration award in a dispute over dental franchises.  In Half Dental Franchise, LLC v. Houchin, 2017 WL 3326425 (Nev. Aug. 3, 2017), the court found the arbitrators did not exceed their power in exercising authority over non-signatories.

The dispute began when Half Dental Franchise filed an arbitration demand against Precision Dental Professionals and Robert Houchin (among others).  They asserted breaches of contract and tort claims (including tortious interference with contract and usurping corporate opportunities).  A three-arbitrator panel found that both those respondents were proper parties, and granted Half Dental about $6.7M in damage.  Houchin filed a motion to vacate the arbitration award  The district court granted the motion, finding that the arbitrators exceeded their power in finding authority over Houchin, and vacated the award.

On appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court found that the district court improperly conducted a de novo review of the arbitrator’s decision finding Houchin bound to the arbitration agreement by estoppel.  (Precision Dental was also a non-signatory to the franchise agreement that the arbitrator found was bound to arbitrate based on estoppel.)  The court noted that under Nevada’s state arbitration statutes, the district court should have asked simply whether there was “colorable justification for the outcome.”  Finding that the arbitrator’s citation to contemporaneous documents provided at least colorable justification for estoppel, the appellate court found no basis for vacatur.  The “colorable justification” standard was especially appropriate because the parties’ arbitration agreement contained a delegation clause, authorizing the arbitrator to “decide any questions relating in any way to the parties’ agreement or claimed agreement to arbitrate.”  (Otherwise, the question of whether non-signatories are bound is presumptively for a court to determine.)  For those reasons, the supreme court reversed the district court’s decision.

What’s the lesson here?  It might be that dentistry is a very competitive field, but it is also that if an award is vacated at the trial court, it’s usually worth bringing an appeal.

 

If you are a party that wants courts to rigidly enforce delegation clauses – sending questions about even the validity of the agreement to arbitration – then you will appreciate a new decision from the Tenth Circuit. In Belnap v. Iasis Healthcare, __ F.3d __, 2017 WL 56277 (10th Cir. Jan. 5, 2017), the court refused to do even a spot check of whether defendant’s claims of arbitrability were accurate and enforced the parties’ delegation clause.

Belnap involved a surgeon suing a medical center, its parent company, four doctors on its Medical Executive Committee, and its “risk manager,” for notifying data banks that he had been suspended, but not notifying all relevant organizations when it later vacated his suspension.  The surgeon’s agreement with the medical center had a dispute resolution clause that called for first mediation and then arbitration “administered by JAMS and conducted in accordance with its” rules.  Relying on that agreement, all defendants moved to compel arbitration.  The district court found the medical center could compel arbitration of one of the seven claims, but that the other six were outside the scope of the arbitration clause.  The district court rejected the non-signatories’ attempt to compel arbitration and rejected the argument that the parties had delegated questions of scope to the arbitrator.

On appeal, the Tenth Circuit began its analysis, as it should, with the question of who should decide whether the claims are arbitrable. On that question, it found that by incorporating the JAMS Rules into the agreement, the surgeon and the medical center had shown a clear and unmistakable intent to delegate questions of arbitrability to an arbitrator.  It also took exception to the fact that “some courts have suggested that the Tenth Circuit is the only federal appellate court that has deviated from this consensus.” (The consensus being that referencing arbitral rules which delegate arbitrability to an arbitrator is clear and unmistakable agreement to alter the default rule that courts decide those issues.)  It clarified a 1998 decision that had led other courts to that conclusion, thereby appearing to mend any alleged circuit split on that issue.

After finding the arbitrator should decide arguments about scope, however, the 10th Circuit still had to address another of the surgeon’s arguments supporting the court’s review.  The surgeon asked the 10th Circuit to “adopt the ‘wholly groundless’ approach of the Fifth, Sixth, and Federal Circuits.”    That approach allows a district court, after finding the parties delegated arbitrability, to conduct a smell test of sorts: whether the assertion of arbitrability is “wholly groundless.”  The idea is, let’s not let parties with delegation clauses go around enforcing them willy nilly, even in instances where there is no legitimate basis for the claim to be arbitrated.  That would force the plaintiffs to waste time and resources going to arbitration, just to be sent back to court again (we hope).

However, the 10th Circuit “decline[d] to adopt the ‘wholly groundless’ approach.”  It found it is in tension with the inflexible language of SCOTUS’s decisions.  It also cited multiple cases from other federal circuits that require enforcement of a delegation clause, but in fairness it appears that the “wholly groundless” approach was not presented to those appellate courts.  Therefore, there is now a split among the federal circuits regarding whether a court can at least spot-check a defendant’s claim of arbitrability before enforcing a delegation clause.

Finally, to end its arbitrability tome, the Tenth Circuit addressed whether the defendants who were not parties to the arbitration clause could also compel arbitration of the surgeon’s claims because they are “principals and agents” of the medical center. The court found against the non-signatories, finding Utah law did not support binding a parent company to an arbitration clause signed by its subsidiary, and that Utah law also did not support the individuals’ ability to compel arbitration.

Just three weeks into the year and already my pile of arbitration cases is a skyscraper! So, I will cover a lot of ground in this update.

First, the headline. Kimberly, Kourtney, and Khloe Kardashian moved to compel arbitration, although they were not signatories to the arbitration agreement.  Kroma Makeup EU v. Boldface Licensing + Branding, 2017 WL 192690 (11th Cir. Jan. 18, 2017).  Despite their celebrity status, they lost in both the Florida district court and the 11th Circuit.  The problem was that the claims they wanted to arbitrate were not within the scope of the arbitration clause, because the clause was limited to “disputes arising between [the Parties]” and they were not parties.  The court had a lot of fun with the fact that the dispute was over makeup companies, writing:

“Like makeup, Florida’s doctrine of equitable estoppel can only cover so much.  It does not provide a non-signatory with a scalpel to re-sculpt what appears on the face of a contract.”

(A defendant was also unable to compel arbitration of a non-signatory class of plaintiffs in Jones v. Singing River Health Services Foundation v. KPMG, 2017 WL 65384 (5th Cir. Jan. 5, 2017).  There, the court found the plaintiff did not rely on the contract to make their claims.)

SCOTUS. On January 13, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to wade into the issue of whether class arbitration waivers are a violation of the federal labor laws.  The National Labor Relations Board (under the Obama Administration) has repeatedly found that they are, but a split developed among the federal courts on whether the NLRB was correct.  ( You can read more about the three cases in which cert was granted at Scotusblog.  And, yes, normally SCOTUS action on arbitration would be my headline, but I couldn’t pass up a chance to see if the Kardashians led to more blog traffic…)

California’s exception that could swallow the rule. In Prima Paint, a 1967 case, SCOTUS found that a plaintiff’s claim that a contract was induced by fraud must be sent to arbitration if that contract has an arbitration clause, as long as there is no argument that that the arbitration clause itself was induced by fraud.  But this week the 9th Circuit affirmed a finding that, under California law, there was “fraud in the inception” of a contract, making it void and the arbitration provision unenforceable.  DKS, Inc. v. Corporate Business Solutions, Inc., 2017 167475 (9th Cir. Jan. 17, 2017).  If I were a plaintiff, I might just try variations on the theme, maybe a claim of “misrepresentation in the inducement”?

Florida voids arbitration agreement as against public policy.  Without any consideration of federal preemption (maybe the parties didn’t raise it?), the Supreme Court of Florida held that the arbitration agreement in a patient’s contract with her clinic was “void as against public policy” because it excluded required provisions of a Florida statute (the Medical Malpractice Act).  Hernandez v. Crespo, 2016 WL 7406537 (Fl. Dec. 22, 2016).  In particular, the court found the contract’s arbitration clause was less favorable to the patient than the statute would have been in six ways.

Alaska says suing to collect debt does not waive the right to compel arbitration in later statutory case.  Banks had litigated debt-collection actions with credit card holders and gotten default judgments.  Later, the card holders filed statutory claims against those banks and the banks moved to compel arbitration.  Applying federal waiver law, Alaska’s Supreme Court found the banks had not waived their right to arbitrate by litigating the debts.  Hudson v. Citibank, 2016 WL 7321567 (Alaska Dec. 16, 2016).

Alabama says “ripeness” is a question for the arbitrator.  In the context of litigation over a claim of indemnification that was made before the claimant had been determined liable, the Alabama Supreme Court found that the defendant’s defense of “ripeness” had to be determined in arbitration, not in court.  “As we have held that the subject matter of the dispute is clearly within the arbitration provision, any ripeness issue must be resolved by the arbitrator, not by this Court.”  FMR Corp. v. Howard, 2017 WL 127991 (Alabama Jan. 13, 2017).

As a teaser, the Tenth Circuit also issued a blockbuster opinion recently, but it deserves its own (future) post…

The Alabama Supreme Court has followed the Eighth Circuit’s lead, concluding that when the parties agree to arbitrate pursuant to the AAA Rules, they have clearly and unmistakably authorized the arbitrator to determine who is bound by that arbitration agreement.  Federal Ins. Co. v. Reedstrom, __ So. 3d __, 2015 WL 9264282 (Ala. Dec. 18, 2015).

The dispute in Reedstrom centered on whether an executive liability insurance policy covered a judgment against a former executive for misconduct.  The executive sued the insurance company for breach of contract, and the company moved to compel arbitration.  The trial court denied the motion without any rationale.

The Alabama Supreme Court reversed.  On appeal, two key issues were analyzed: whether the insurance company could compel arbitration with the executive, even though he did not sign the insurance policy (his former employer did); and whether the insurance company had waived its right to arbitrate.  The court noted that the default rule is that courts generally decide both those issues, unless the arbitration provision “clearly and unmistakably” delegates them to the arbitrator.  And in this case, the majority found the arbitration provision did exactly that by agreeing to arbitrate pursuant to the current AAA commercial rules, which allow the arbitrator to rule on his or her own jurisdiction.

Three justices dissented from the opinion, generally concluding that incorporating the AAA rules is not enough, by itself, to constitute clear and unmistakable evidence that parties intend to submit arbitrability to an arbitrator.

The Supreme Court of Hawai’i concluded last week that it is fundamentally unfair to allow one party to an arbitration agreement to unilaterally select the arbitral forum. Nishimura v. Gentry Homes, Ltd., __ P.3d__, 2014 WL 5503393 (Haw. Oct. 31, 2014).  The parties can either jointly agree to a forum, or the court will select it for them.

A putative class of homeowners sued their builder, alleging the homes lacked “adequate high wind protection.” The builder moved to compel arbitration. The arbitration agreement called for binding arbitration of all disputes relating to the design or construction of the home. It also stated the “arbitration shall be conducted by Construction Arbitration Services, Inc., or such other reputable arbitration service that [the warranty service corporation] shall select, at its sole discretion…” Because Construction Arbitration Services, Inc., was no longer administering construction arbitrations, the agreement allowed the builder and its warranty service to unilaterally chose the entity that would administer the arbitration.

The Hawaii high court refused to allow the builder such one-sided power. It adopted the Sixth Circuit’s “fundamental fairness” test to determine “whether an arbitrator-selection provision is enforceable.” Applying that test, the court affirmed the lower court’s finding that the sole discretion in the arbitration agreement is fundamentally unfair. (The court also clarified that a party challenging the arbitration agreement’s arbitrator selection process does not need to wait until the arbitration is over and does not need to prove actual bias.) The court therefore severed the arbitrator-selection sentence from the agreement, and affirmed the lower court’s order requiring the parties to try and agree on an arbitration service or else the court would fill in the gap.

I am not sure why the Sixth Circuit, and then Hawaii, would establish a separate test for invalidating an arbitrator selection provision, instead of just applying a routine unconscionability analysis. Creating a special test for arbitrator selection seems to invite a preemption argument.

Finally, a post script from last week’s post (noting that a wife was not bound to her husband’s arbitration agreement on a golf cart purchase). This week, a case went the other way, finding a wife was bound to her husband’s arbitration agreement. In Everett v. Paul Davis Restoration, Inc., __ F.3d __, 2014 WL 5573300 (7th Cir. Nov. 3, 2014), the court found that the wife had received many direct benefits from the franchise agreement signed only by her husband and therefore was bound by its arbitration agreement. (For example, she was a half owner of the company that ran the franchise and benefitted from “trading upon the name, goodwill, reputation and other direct contractual benefits of the franchise agreement.”) It also did not help that the husband-wife team colluded to avoid the restrictive covenant in the franchise agreement.