Seifert v. United Built Homes, LLC: Delegating Issues of Arbitrability to the Arbitrator
In Seifert, an owner sued a homebuilder in Texas federal court for breach of contract and sought damages and declaratory relief. No. 3:22-CV-1360-E, 2023 WL 4826206 (N.D. Tex. July 27, 2023). The builder moved to compel arbitration. The owner opposed and argued that: (1) there was no agreement to arbitrate because the underlying contract was null and void, and (2) its claim for declaratory relief fell outside the scope of the arbitration clause. The court did not address the merits of either argument. Instead, it determined that these were issues for the arbitrator to decide.
The court reasoned that the parties had delegated issues of arbitrability to the arbitrator by agreeing to arbitrate under the AAA Home Construction Arbitration Rules. Rule 11(a) of these rules provides that “[t]he arbitrator shall have the power to rule on his or her jurisdiction, including any objections with respect to the existence, scope, or validity of the arbitration agreement or to the arbitrability of any claim or counterclaim.” The court explained that, under Fifth Circuit precedent, the “express incorporation of the AAA rules providing that the arbitrator will determine questions of arbitrability constitutes clear and unmistakable evidence of intent to delegate gateway arbitration questions.” Thus, the court granted the builder’s motion to compel arbitration.
Professional Construction, Inc. v. Historic Walnut Square, LLC: Waiver by Litigation Conduct
The court in Professional Construction addressed whether, under Indiana law, a contractor waived its right to compel arbitration by initiating a lawsuit for breach of contract against the owner. 224 N.E.3d 352 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023). By way of background, the contractor sent a letter demanding that the owner participate in mediation and arbitration per the parties’ agreement. The owner declined. The contractor then sued the owner in Wisconsin state court asserting claims for breach of contract and seeking relief that included “an order compelling Owner to comply with the Construction Contract’s mediation and arbitration clauses.”
Thereafter, the owner commenced a separate lawsuit against the contractor—in Indiana—asserting claims for breach of contract. The contractor moved to compel arbitration in the Indiana court. The owner opposed, arguing that the contractor had waived its right to arbitration by commencing the lawsuit for breach of contract in Wisconsin. The Indiana trial court denied the motion to compel arbitration and the contractor appealed.
The Indiana Court of Appeals explained that commencing a lawsuit for breach of contract before a court “is a presumptive waiver of the right to arbitrate.” This presumption could be rebutted, however, if invoking the judicial process “does not signify an intention to proceed in a court to the exclusion of arbitration.” The court determined that, under the circumstances, the contractor did not act inconsistently with its right to arbitrate by commencing the lawsuit in Wisconsin. It reasoned that there were no attempts to litigate the merits of the dispute and that the contractor’s complaint had specifically requested an order requiring the owner to comply with the agreement’s arbitration clause. As such, the Indiana court compelled the owner to arbitration.
Lessons From These Two Recent Cases
Seifert and Professional Construction underscore the importance of anticipating threshold issues to arbitration—both when drafting an arbitration clause and preparing for a dispute. Consistent with Seifert, most state and federal courts hold that incorporation of AAA Construction Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures or JAMS Construction Arbitration Rules & Procedures, which each provide that arbitrators are to decide arbitrability issues, effectively delegates to arbitrators authority to decide most gateway issues. However, some courts have decided otherwise. Construction arbitration clauses can expressly include in the body of the agreement a delegation clause providing that the arbitrators, not the court, decide questions of arbitrability—something parties might consider doing as a matter of “belts and suspenders” where that is what is intended.
As to the question of waiver, the court in Professional Construction reached a common-sense conclusion—filing a lawsuit and requesting that a party be compelled to arbitrate should not by itself give rise to waiver of the right to arbitrate. This is especially so since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Morgan v. Sundance that prejudice is not a necessary element to establish waiver of the right to arbitrate under the Federal Arbitration Act, making it easier for a court to find that there has been waiver. 596 U.S. 411 (2022). While state arbitration law may have a different standard for waiver, the Supreme Court’s decision in Morgan is likely to be considered by state courts as they assess the standard for waiver of the right to arbitrate under state law. Indeed, the California Supreme Court is poised to decide in Quach v. California Commerce Club, Inc., whether to continue to apply a prejudice requirement to waiver of the right to arbitrate under California law. 78 Cal. App. 5th 470 (2022), review granted August 24, 2022, S275121; see also Daniel D. McMillan, et al., Goodbye Saint Agnes?, Daily Journal (Nov. 10, 2022), https://www.dailyjournal.com/articles/369872.
Arbitration continues to be a frequently specified alternative to the courthouse for resolving construction disputes. The recent cases of Seifert and Professional Services illustrate that issues of arbitrability and waiver of the right to arbitrate continue to be raised. Paying close attention to the language of the arbitration agreement, the parties’ conduct, and the applicable arbitration rules and law may minimize unexpected procedural outcomes and make it more likely that you can avoid the courthouse.
Author Daniel D. McMillan is a partner with Jones Day in Los Angeles. Dan’s practice focuses on complex commercial, business, and construction litigation. As co-chair of Jones Day’s global construction practice, Dan represents owners, design professionals, and contractors in large construction disputes and in negotiating and drafting the full panoply of contracts for large projects.
Author TJ Auner is an associate with Jones Day in Los Angeles. TJ represents clients in complex commercial, construction, and energy disputes, with a focus on domestic and international arbitration.
Editor Marcus Quintanilla is an experienced arbitrator and mediator with over 20 years of experience in international arbitration and cross-border litigation. Marcus maintains arbitration chambers in San Francisco, Houston, and Miami.
The views and opinions set forth in this article are the personal views or opinions of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the law firm with which they are associated.
No comments:
Post a Comment