Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Litigation Blogs -> Arkansas Business Litigation Blog
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Litigation
: Arkansas Business Litigation BlogEighth Circuit Holds That Arbitrability Must be Determined by the Court Unless Contract States Otherwise
By H. William Allen et al.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed a denial of a motion to dismiss pending arbitration in Express Scripts, Inc. v. Aegon Direct Marketing Services, Inc., No. 07-1971 (2/13/08). This is a long post, but this case has two important points for the validity of arbitration clauses in the Eighth Circuit.
Aegon and Express Scripts (ESI) entered into a contract in 1995 that contained a broad arbitration provision. The provision adopted the rules of the American Arbitration Association (AAA). The parties proposed an amended contract in 2000 that eliminated the provision, but they never signed the contract. After a billing dispute, Aegon demanded repayment of $5 million from ESI. Aegon felt the 1995 agreement was in effect and filed an arbitration proceeding. ESI claimed the parties adopted the 2000 agreement through performance and filed a declaratory action in the Eastern District of Missouri.
The main issue was whether the claim was arbitrable and who should make this determination. Aegon claimed the arbitrator should make this determination; ESI argued the court should. One of the AAA rules in force, which the parties adopted, was that the arbitrator has the power to determine his/her jurisdiction, i.e. the issue of arbitrability. Aegon never raised this argument to the district court. The district court determined: (1) the 1995 arbitration provision did not govern a later dispute of whether a subsequent contract amended the 1995 contract; and (2) it was for the court to determine arbitrability. The court then denied the motion to dismiss pending arbitration.
In its appellate brief, Aegon failed to raise its argument that AAA rules grant the arbitrator the right to determine arbitrability. It raised this argument for the first time at oral argument. The Eighth Circuit declined to address this issue. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, stating that courts determine arbitrability unless the contract specifically states otherwise.
To sum up, if you want the arbitrator to determine arbitrability, and if you want the arbitration clause to apply to any future argument about whether a superseding contract exists, the clause needs to specifically state that it governs these issues.
Full post as published by Arkansas Business Litigation Blog on February 20, 2008 (boomark / email).
Selection of State Supreme Court Judges
How State Court Judges are Selected
Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Career Choices
Descriptions of law enforcement occupations
Uniform Commercial Code and Contracts
Interstate commercial transactions and sale of goods in the United States
Employment Contracts
General Contract Law Principles
California Supreme Court Proposition 8 Decision
Court Rejects Challenges to Proposition 8, but Finds Marriages Valid
Is Barack Obama a Natural Born Citizen?
Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz (Supreme Court): Does Obama meet the constitutional requirements to be President
Specialty Lamp International
Recalls Counterfeit Circuit Breakers
Cilantro
Recalled in 5 States
Lettuce
Recalled in 29 States due to Salmonella
Salmonella Outbreak
50 People Sick in Five States
Ebay Fined
French Court Sets Fine at $61 Million
Personal Injury
Appeals Court Upholds Congressional Legislation

Law: Eighth Circuit upholds law denying federal aid to drug offenders
Eighth Circuit Finds Class Action Aribtration Ban Not Unconscionable








