Arbitration & Mediation

"In Accordance With Commercial Rules of AAA" Held By Florida Court to Mean Any Arbitral Forum

By Christopher B. Hopkins, Esq.

A Palm Beach trial court, following the language of a specific arbitration agreement and a prior Idaho Supreme Court opinion, held that the parties were not required to arbitrate in the AAA despite the fact that the agreement said, "matter shall be settled by arbitration under the United States Federal Arbitration Act in accordance with the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association."

Previously, we stretched wayyyyy outside of Florida to report an Idaho Supreme Court decision, Deeds v. Blue Shield of Idaho, where it held, "This Court sees no reason why the arbitration cannot proceed 'in accordance with the applicable rules of the AAA' using a different arbitrator."

In Thomas F. Kloberg Defined Benefit Plan v. Ark Financial Services, Inc., the parties were already arbitrating a related matter before FINRA (formerly NASD). While Ark's subsidiary, Dawson James, was a FINRA member, Ark itself was not. Despite the matters sharing the same parties, lawyers, witnesses, and documents, Ark fought to keep its claim out of FINRA, despite arguing to trial judge Diana Lewis that its case should be in arbitration -- but in another forum.

The hearing transcript is here.

Full post as published by Florida Arbitration Law on April 26, 2009 (boomark / email).