Justia Arbitration & Mediation Opinion Summaries

Gladys Tellis, Sherry Bronson, Gwendolyn Moody, Nadine Ivy, and Uneeda Trammell (collectively, "the policyholders") initiated separate actions against American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida, asserting generally that American Bankers had sold them homeowner's insurance policies providing a level of coverage they could never receive, even in the event of a total loss involving the covered property. American Bankers moved the trial court hearing each action to compel arbitration pursuant to arbitration provisions it alleged were part of the subject policies; however, the trial courts denied those motions, and American Bankers appealed. The Supreme Court consolidated the five appeals for the purpose of writing one opinion, and reversed those orders denying the motions to compel arbitration. The Court based its decision on its holdings that the policyholders manifested their assent to the arbitration provision in their policies by continuing to renew the policies, that the sale of the policies affected interstate commerce, and that the arbitration provision in the policies was not unconscionable. View "American Bankers Ins. Co. of Florida v. Tellis" on Justia Law

Francisco Lopez hired Royston, Rayzor, Vickery & Williams, LLP (the Firm) to represent him in a divorce suit. The attorney-client employment contract between the parties contained an arbitration provision specifying that Lopez and the Firm will arbitrate any disputes that arise between them with the exception of claims made by the Firm for recovery of its fees and expenses. Once the underlying divorce matter was settled, Lopez sued the Firm, claiming that the Firm induced him to accept an inadequate settlement. The Firm moved to compel arbitration. The trial court denied the Firm’s motion. The Firm filed an interlocutory appeal challenging the denial and an original proceeding seeking mandamus under common law. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s refusal to order arbitration and denied mandamus relief, concluding that the arbitration provision was so one-sided as to be substantively unconscionable and unenforceable. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Lopez did not prove that either the arbitration provision was substantively unconscionable or any other defense to the arbitration provision. View "In re Royston, Rayzor, Vickery, & Williams, LLP" on Justia Law

Petitioners sued Respondents. Respondents, represented by counsel, made a settlement offer. The offer subsequently expired. Respondents’ counsel later extended a new settlement offer with terms that mirrored the prior offer. Petitioners’ attorney timely accepted the offer, and the trial court accepted the settlement (February 8 settlement). After Respondents’ attorney learned that he lacked authority to extend the settlement offer, he made a new settlement offer, which materially varied from the February 8 settlement. Petitioners moved to enforce the February 8 settlement. The trial court granted the motion, concluding that Respondents’ attorney had actual and apparent authority to extend the settlement offer and, alternatively, that Respondents were equitably estopped from disputing that authority. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that because Respondents’ assent to the agreement was not in writing, the requirements of Ariz. R. Civ. P. 80(d) were not met, and the agreement was unenforceable as a matter of law. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) because the parties in this case did not dispute the existence and terms of the February 8 settlement, Rule 80(d) did not apply; (2) even if Rule 80(d) applied, the agreement satisfied the rule; and (3) the agreement was enforceable because the attorney acted within the apparent authority given by his clients. View "Robertson v. Alling" on Justia Law

Plaintiff entered into a salvage contract with Defendant to obtain help when his boat went aground one night. Plaintiff later attempted to rescind the contract, claiming that he signed the contract under duress and disputing the sum owed to Defendant. The parties submitted the dispute to a panel of arbitrators pursuant to a binding arbitration clause in the salvage contract. Plaintiff then filed this lawsuit seeking a preliminary injunction against the arbitration and a declaration that the salvage contract was unenforceable. The district court denied the motion and stayed the case pending the outcome of the arbitration. The arbitration panel found in favor of Defendant and ordered Plaintiff to pay a salvage award. The district court affirmed the award. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the district court erred in confirming the arbitration award without first addressing his claim that the arbitration clause was unenforceable. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that, where Plaintiff’s challenge to the validity of the arbitration clause itself came only after Defendant moved to confirm the panel’s award, the district court had no proper basis on which to refuse to confirm the arbitration panel’s award. View "Farnsworth, III v. Towboat Nantucket Sound, Inc." on Justia Law

Suzanne Listro, a social worker employed by the Department of Children and Families, was charged with manslaughter in the first degree and risk of injury to a child after a foster child in her care died. The Department dismissed Listro for cause due to her “serious misconduct.” Listro was later acquitted of the criminal charges. The collective bargaining unit for the Department’s social workers (the Union) filed a grievance on Listro’s behalf challenging her termination. An arbitrator denied Listro’s grievance. The superior court vacated the arbitrator’s award, concluding that the arbitrator exceeded her authority in using negligence as a standard and basis for her award. The Appellate Court reversed, concluding that “negligence arguably came within the purview of the [collective bargaining] agreement” and was an appropriate term of the arbitrator to use to describe Listro’s conduct, which was the basis of her dismissal for just cause. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, in light of the just cause provision of the collective bargaining agreement and the notice to Listro that her conduct on the evening of the child's death provided the basis for termination, the trial court improperly granted the Union’s application to vacate the arbitrator’s award. View "AFSCME, Council 4, Local 2663 v. Dep’t of Children & Families" on Justia Law

This case arose from an interest arbitration award that retroactively increased employee health care premiums for a period when there was no enforceable collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The Superior Court struck a portion of the award that granted the retroactive increase, ruling that the award: (1) was an unconstitutional taking in violation of the due process clause; (2) violated Washington's wage rebate act (WRA); and (3) was arbitrary and capricious. Kitsap County appealed this ruling and the Washington Supreme Court granted direct review. Finding the arbitration award proper, the Supreme Court reversed. View "Kitsap County Deputy Sheriffs' Guild v. Kitsap County" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendants, alleging various wage and hour violations of the Labor Code, as well as other causes of action. On appeal, defendants challenged the trial court's denial of their motion to compel arbitration of claims based on the alleged misclassification of plaintiff as an independent contractor rather than an employee. The court found that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. 1 et seq., applies to the parties’ arbitration agreement, and all of plaintiff’s claims are arbitrable; defendants did not waive their right to arbitration even though they waited 14 months after the complaint was filed to move to compel arbitration; plaintiff cannot demonstrate prejudice from the delay, which is determinative; and the court reversed the trial court’s order denying the petition to compel arbitration and remand the case to the trial court with instructions to enter an order compelling arbitration of all of plaintiff’s claims. View "Khalatian v. Prime Time Shuttle" on Justia Law

Buyer purchased a manufactured home from Sellers. The parties entered into a contract setting forth the terms of the sale and the parties obligations. The contract contained an arbitration provision under which Sellers retained the right to seek relief in a judicial forum for limited purposes. Buyer later brought a breach of contract action against Sellers, and Sellers filed a motion to compel arbitration. The trial court denied the motion to compel, holding that the non-mutuality remedies in the arbitration provision rendered it unconscionable and invalid. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Sellers’ retention of a judicial forum for limited purposes did not render the arbitration agreement unconscionable. View "Berent v. CMH Homes, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendants below, J. Don Gordon Construction, Inc. and Western Surety Company appealed the circuit court's judgment on an arbitration award entered against them. The defendants argued that the award should have been vacated for various reasons under section 10(a) of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. 1 et seq. ("the FAA"). After review of their arguments, the Alabama Supreme Court was unpersuaded by the argument: the arbitrator's failure to recuse himself upon learning the information about a domestic-violence case did not indicate evident partiality. The large award of legal fees against Western Surety –– an award the arbitrator testified was "significantly less" than the amount claimed by the plaintiffs –– did not indicate evident partiality, either. "The alleged partiality at most suggests a 'mere appearance' of bias that is remote, uncertain, and speculative rather than 'direct, definite, and capable of demonstration.' [ . . .] A reasonable person would not have to conclude that the arbitrator was partial given these facts." The Court affirmed the circuit court's order. View "J. Don Gordon Construction, Inc. v. Brown" on Justia Law

Plaintiff worked for the Alexandria Redevelopment and Housing Authority (ARHA) before being discharged for violating ARHA’s “absenteeism and tardiness policies.” Plaintiff filed a complaint in circuit court claiming that she had been improperly discharged. The circuit court denied Plaintiff’s request for reinstatement and her claim for money damages but held that Plaintiff was entitled to have her claims arbitrated under ARHA’s grievance procedure. The Supreme Court reversed and entered final judgment in favor of ARHA, holding that the circuit court misapplied Va. Code 15.2-1507(A)(7)(b) and erred in ordering ARHA to arbitrate Plaintiff’s grievance. View "Alexandria Redevelopment & Housing Auth. v. Walker" on Justia Law