Drafting a Better Arbitration Agreement to Stay Out of Court

A recent five-year, ten-state study proved that effectively managed arbitrations save time and money in comparison to litigation. This study found that federal court lawsuits lasted over a year longer than arbitrations decided during the same period, which delay caused direct business losses exceeding $10 billion, in part due to lost management time, the effect of prolonged litigation uncertainty on management decision-making, credit and investor concerns, and lost use of resources tied up by litigation. Delayed dispute resolution is simply bad for business.

Therefore, parties wisely draft their arbitration agreements to limit discovery and motion practice, and, equally important, they carefully select arbitrators trained to run efficient proceedings.

But more forethought is necessary for arbitration to live up to the cost savings it was intended to achieve. Too often, arbitration is delayed – sometimes for years – pending judicial resolution of allegedly ambiguous arbitration provisions. Drafters of arbitration agreements should consider the following to avoid, or at least limit, expensive side litigation.

    1.    Clearly define the scope of the arbitration agreement.

To avoid litigation, the arbitration agreement should make clear:

        a)    That its scope applies to all disputes or controversies arising out of or related to the relationship of the parties or the transaction at issue, including statutory, tort, equitable, common law or contract-based claims, including those arising before as well as after the arbitration agreement;

        b)    That objections to the scope and validity of the arbitration agreement and the underlying contract must be arbitrated; and

        c)    Whether it binds entities related to the contracting parties, whether it requires consolidation of all related disputes to avoid multiple, parallel proceedings, and whether it precludes class actions.

    2.    Define the arbitrator’s authority.

The arbitration agreement should leave no question as to the arbitrator’s authority.  It should:

        a)    Give the arbitrator sole authority to determine whether the parties have satisfied conditions to arbitration, as well as the enforceability of the underlying contract(s) and arbitration agreement, and the scope of the arbitration agreement; and

        b)    Clarify that the arbitrator has broad authority to award damages, injunctive and other equitable remedies, and assess fees, costs and sanctions.

    3.    Draft a fundamentally fair agreement.

One-sided or unconscionable arbitration agreements invite litigation. Organizations like JAMS and AAA are good resources for provisions that are clearly worded, fairly drafted, and commercially reasonable.

    4.    Avoid inconsistent contract terms.

Litigation results when language in boiler plate arbitration agreements conflicts with other standard provisions in the underlying or related contract documents. Commonly inconsistent provisions concern:

        a)    Choice of law and availability of remedies;

        b)    Inapplicable references to courts and judicial venues for dispute resolution; and

        c)    Confusion as to selection or number of arbitrators or arbitral rules.

In summary, a well drafted arbitration agreement should foster the cost-effective resolution of disputes, using language that is consciously crafted to avoid rather than result in litigation.

Author Patricia H. Thompson, Esq., FCIArb, is  a full-time neutral at JAMS, with experience conducting virtual and in-person mediations, arbitrations and other ADR proceedings in construction and other complex commercial disputes.

Is Arbitration on the Briefs Right for your Client?

As clients increasingly demand options for timely, efficient dispute resolution, attorneys need to stay apprised of all available alternatives. Private arbitration was developed with efficiency in mind and has become wildly popular in the construction industry, providing parties a means to avoid delays caused by backlog in state and federal court dockets as well as evidentiary and procedural formalities. The American Arbitration Association’s Fast Track Procedures within the Construction Rules further trim the usual arbitration procedures, pushing parties through a streamlined pleading and discovery process. However, even the AAA Fast Track Procedures require significant time and resources, primarily those invested in conducting a hearing before an arbitrator.

Submitting a case for decision on briefs alone, without presenting in-person evidence or argument to the adjudicating body, is common in appellate litigation. It is also frequently used in trial court-level litigation, sometimes without the parties’ consent. Parties agreeing to arbitration on briefs alone, however, is exceedingly rare. Yet, when employed in the appropriate situation, agreeing to submit a dispute to an arbitrator on briefs alone can be a useful tool for quick and efficient dispute resolution and a highly satisfied client. On major construction projects, the commitment to arbitrate certain matters is often made before a dispute arises. So, when is arbitration on the briefs the right choice for your client’s project? And, what can you do to ensure a successful resolution? Let’s explore.

Arbitration on the briefs has two primary benefits. First, it can be highly cost-effective. Eliminating the costs associated with witness and hearing preparation and presentation can significantly reduce the overall price tag of arbitration. Second, arbitration on the briefs provides for speedy dispute resolution without sacrificing equity or expertise. Again, jettisoning a hearing can expedite a final resolution on the merits by weeks, if not months; certain disputes may even be submitted for a decision on the briefs without a traditional discovery process, which all practitioners know can be extremely time-consuming. Furthermore, the arbitration agreement allows the parties to dictate the timeline for decision, eliminating uncertainty and facilitating easy mid-project or mid-term dispute resolution.

Foregoing a hearing is not without its downsides. Without a hearing, an arbitrator may miss or misunderstand certain complex factual issues, and the parties have limited opportunity for clarification. Thus, astute construction attorneys will recognize that arbitration on the briefs is not one-size fits all. Predicting the nature of disputes likely to arise on your project and the evidence necessary to resolving those disputes is critical in 1) deciding whether arbitration on the briefs is appropriate for your client’s project and 2) drafting the terms of such an arrangement. When considering an agreement to arbitration on the briefs, keep in mind the following tips for success.

Identifying the Issues Subject to Arbitration. Not all disputes lend themselves to resolution on written arguments alone. For the same reasons decisions without a hearing are regularly issued in an appellate court setting, an arbitrator’s decision on the briefs is most successful when the dispute is straightforward and turns on a few narrow questions if not a single, objective issue. Lay witness and/or subjective evidence-heavy fact patterns and other, more complex disputes may be difficult for an arbitrator to grasp on paper alone and key details may be lost without an opportunity for the arbitrator to ask questions. Conveying witness credibility and evidentiary context may also be difficult. Accordingly, disputes involving competing expert testimony are not well-suited to resolution by this method. By contrast, a foreseeable, single-issue quarrel that requires either interpretation or application of a contract clause to a limited factual scenario is easily decided with limited party input. For example, in an agreement based primarily on unit prices, disputes over adjustments to unit prices may be well-suited to arbitration on the briefs. Adjustments to unit pricing are often necessitated by either 1) market fluctuations or 2) significant changes to the quantity of units subject to the agreement. Hence, few subjective factual issues will compound a dispute over the equity of an adjustment to an agreed unit price. Design ambiguity controversies and cost-only change order disputes may also lend themselves to resolution through arbitration on the briefs, particularly when employed mid-project to mitigate damages resulting from postponing a final resolution.

Careful Clause Drafting. Once you have identified the types of disputes amenable to arbitration on the briefs, your arbitration clause should carefully identify and describe those disputes to be subjected to arbitration. In addition, the language should plainly outline the particularities of the arbitration process itself. Each condition applied to the process should promote swift and cost-effective adjudication. Contemplate the following terms when developing an agreement to arbitrate without a hearing:

Arbitrator Selection. Before agreeing to arbitration on the briefs, consider the qualifications an arbitrator needs to provide a speedy and fair resolution. Ideally, an arbitrator should be able to jump into a dispute with minimal education on the intricacies of the particular dispute. In pricing disputes, an arbitrator with an accounting or financial background might be valuable. Alternatively, in a design ambiguity scenario, an arbitrator with architectural or design expertise will require less explanation to understand the parties’ respective positions and reach an equitable decision. To avoid wasting the expediency provided by arbitration on the briefs, the parties should also delineate explicit terms as to how a candidate pool will be developed and how the arbitrator will be selected in the event the parties cannot agree.

Specific Timeframes. As discussed above, a timely resolution of your dispute is a principal benefit of arbitration on briefs alone. Thus, the parties should settle on hard and fast deadlines for brief submission and the arbitrator’s decision. If needed, a limited timeframe for seeking clarification or enforcement of the arbitrator’s decision should also be employed.

Evidentiary Limitations. Your arbitration agreement should place strict limitations on the type and volume of evidence each party is permitted to submit in conjunction with its brief. Disputes that may be decided on objective, empirical, and/or documented evidence will find the most success in arbitration without a hearing. This is not to say that no fact witness testimony should be admitted; a successful arbitration on the briefs provision will permit submission of an affidavit or similar sworn statement to verify documentary evidence and provide necessary project details to put the dispute in context. Still, the primary source of evidence submitted to the arbitrator should be documentary, not testimonial. Taking it a step further, restricting evidence included in the briefs to evidence exchanged prior to submitting the case to arbitration may facilitate the arbitrator’s decision making process, and may even promote interparty resolution without arbitration. Similarly, you might also consider a page limitation on the briefs; a limited writing will force each party to concisely state its position, and it will assist the arbitrator in identifying the key issues she must consider in making her decision.

Decision Implementation and Cost Allocation. Finally, consider how an arbitrator’s decision should be effectuated. Should the decision or award be applied retroactively? If so, at what point should its application begin? Take our example of a unit price disagreement. Should the arbitrator’s decision apply only to future units? Or, if the pricing decision applies retroactively, should it apply to all units from the time the adjustment was requested forward? Or from the time the dispute was submitted to arbitration? The answers to these questions depend on the projected disputes and your client’s anticipated position. Another important term to consider in an arbitration on the briefs agreement is an attorney fee-shifting provision. In keeping with the cost-efficiency goal of opting for arbitration on the briefs, an agreement that the prevailing party will recover its attorney’s fees will aid in ensuring only truly unresolvable disputes reach the arbitration phase and dis-incentivize over-lawyering.

Arbitration on the briefs is an interesting dispute resolution procedure to consider for your clients’ future projects and disputes. While it may not benefit all clients or all projects, under the right circumstances, proposing this procedure can yield dividends for your client and allow you to appear strategically savvy and cost-minded.

Author Megan K. George is an attorney in the Lexington, Kentucky office of Stites & Harbison PLLC.  She counsels clients on a diverse array of construction matters and routinely drafts, negotiates and reviews contracts for clients. She also frequently handles complex construction litigation and arbitration, advising clients in all stages of dispute resolution.

The AAA Permitted to Pull Rank to Disqualify a Named Arbitrator

In the recently decided case, LD Miller Construction, Inc. V. Kirschenbaum, - P.3d - (N.M. App. Dec. 1, 2016) the Court of Appeals of New Mexico affirmed the hearing justice's order that the American Arbitration Association ("AAA") indeed could disqualify an arbitrator from arbitrating a dispute between a contractor and homeowners for the failure of the arbitrator to follow the AAA Rules.

The Homeowners hired the Contractor to do concrete and framing work on their property in Santa Fe, New Mexico.  Contractor completed the work, but the Homeowners disagreed that is was done properly.  They hired someone else to correct the work.  A short time later, the Contractor submitted an invoice for the concrete and framing work to the Homeowners.  The Homeowners only paid half of what was claimed owed by the Contractor.  Apparently in recognition that a dispute had arisen, about two weeks later, the Homeowners and Contractor entered into an arbitration agreement:

Contractor and Owner agree to binding arbitration under AAA (American Arbitration Association) for any dispute (claim, work, material, etc.) between Contractor and Owner . . . . Contractor and Owner agree that the designated arbitrator shall be Roger Lengyel.

Fast forward two years later, the Contractor filed a complaint in court for the unpaid amount.  The Homeowners answered with an affirmative defense that the action must be dismissed in light of the arbitration agreement. The Court agreed and issued an order that stated in pertinent part:

the parties are compelled to arbitrate this matter pursuant to the terms of the arbitration agreement, requiring binding arbitration under the [AAA] with . . . Roger Lengyel as the designated arbitrator.

The parties attempted arbitration but it quickly devolved with the Contractor sending a letter to the AAA requesting disqualification of the arbitrator for non-neutrality.  According the Contractor, the arbitrator was having ex parte communications with the Homeowners and setting rules that only served to delay the arbitration (which benefited the Homeowners). The Homeowners insisted that the Court's order had designated the named arbitrator and usurped AAA's power to disqualify him.  The AAA sought clarification from the court.  The hearing justice concluded based on the language of the order that the AAA could disqualify. AAA did just that.  The Homeowners appealed.

On appeal, the court applied New Mexico contract law for the interpretation and construction of the agreement. Because neither party argued that the agreement was ambiguous, the court simply was to determine "what do the words of the agreement mean and what is their legal effect"? The Homeowners argued for an "integral-ancillary" bifurcation of the agreement under the Rivera v. Am. Gen. Fin. Servs., Inc., 259 P.3d 803 (N.M. 2011).  They claimed that because the designation of the arbitrator was introduced with the precatory "shall be Roger Lengyel," this provision is integral and must be abided, whereas the "under the AAA" was merely ancillary. The Court explained that Rivera was limited to its facts, where the parties had "clearly intended to use a designated institutional arbitration provider" but that provider no longer existed. As a result, the Rivera court held that the arbitration provision would have to stricken in its entirety because arbitrating with the chosen provider was integral to the agreement and the section could not be rewritten by the court.  The Court continued that the instant dispute was much different. To treat the two cases as the same "would unreasonably treat as equivalent an unavailable arbitration provider and a disqualifiable arbitrator" with an available provider. Plus the Court noted that Rivera did not even get to the issue presented by the Homeowners -- weighing the relative value of two, separate provisions.

In the Court's de novo review of the agreement's language, the Court held that "most reasonable construction of this language is that 'under AAA' incorporates all of the AAA rules normally applicable to proceedings held under AAA's auspices." There was nothing in the agreement that limited the AAA's powers or made certain rules inapplicable.  The Court acknowledged that the use of "shall" to designate the arbitrator is strong evidence that the parties agreed to use him. However there was nothing in agreement that this arbitrator could be non-neutral, which is contrary to the AAA rules. If this arbitrator could be non-neutral in violation of the AAA Rules, then it would "potentially cause [the Rules] to have no meaning." In sum, the Court held that "The most natural construction of the Arbitration Agreement is that the parties intended to arbitrate disputes between them concerning [the Contractor's] construction work under all of the AAA rules, with Lengyel serving as a neutral arbitrator. To interpret the Arbitration Agreement designating Lengyel to trump the AAA rule permitting replacement of a neutral arbitrator in certain circumstances would risk rendering the AAA Rules meaningless." Accordingly, the hearing justice's order and the AAA's disqualification were affirmed.

--------------------------------------------------

The author, Katharine Kohm, is a committee member for The Dispute Resolver. Katharine practices construction law and commercial litigation in Rhode Island and Massachusetts. She is an associate at Pierce Atwood, LLP in Providence, Rhode Island. She may be contacted at 401-490-3407 or kkohm@PierceAtwood.com.