April 26, 2022, brought us two new arbitration rulings to sink our teeth into. One ruling was issued by the Supreme Court and the other by the Court of Appeals. I think the court of Appeals decision might get reversed.
In Car Credit, Inc v. Pitts, the Supreme Court considered a
challenge to a judgment confirming an arbitration award. The appellant claimed
that the award should be vacated because the arbitration forum designated in
the arbitration clause was not utilized because it was unavailable. In my
opinion, the Supreme Court (and Federal courts) go out of their way to confirm
arbitration awards. This case was no different, but it relied upon a rule that
the Supreme Court has repeatedly articulated. It is highly technical but
lawyers in this field need to know it. The Court found that the arbitration
agreement contained an enforceable delegation clause and the appellant failed
to challenge the validity and enforceability of that clause.
The
appellant did challenge the AAA arbitrator’s authority to hear the case on
jurisdictional grounds. The arbitrator denied that challenge. But the appellant
failed to challenge the arbitrator’s jurisdiction to make that ruling.
Regardless, the Court of Appeals ruled in her favor. But the Supreme Court reversed,
noting in part that “the delegation provision is an agreement to arbitrate
threshold issues concerning the arbitration agreement”, citing the Seminal case
of Rent-A-Center, W., Inc. v. Jackson.
In what may be the next arbitration
ruling to be reversed by the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals ruled in favor
of the appellant in Wind v. McClure. In that case, the Court of
Appeals held that the Circuit Court was correct in refusing to enforce an
arbitration agreement because its language and format failed to comply with state
law mandates. To be specific, the arbitration agreement failed to include
certain large font warnings, regarding the existence of an arbitration
clause. The requirement in question,
however, is not included in the Federal Arbitration Act, the supremacy of which
the Supreme Court strictly enforces. Perhaps the appellate will not appeal.
Food for thought.
No comments:
Post a Comment