Allied-Bruce Terminix Companies, Inc. v. Dobson
Decision Date | 03 November 1995 |
Docket Number | ALLIED-BRUCE |
Citation | 684 So.2d 102 |
Parties | TERMINIX COMPANIES, INC., et al. v. G. Michael DOBSON, Wanda C. Dobson, Steven Gwin, and Jan Gwin. 1920473. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Joseph P. Jones, Jr. and T. Julian Motes of Sirote & Permutt, P.C., Mobile, and Robert A. Wills of Wills and Simon, Bay Minette, for Appellants.
Alan R. Chason of Chason & Chason, P.C., Bay Minette, for Appellees G. Michael Dobson and Wanda C. Dobson.
On Remand from the Supreme Court of the United States
This cause is on remand from the Supreme Court of the United States. The question is whether the Federal Arbitration Act ("the Act") requires arbitration of the claims at issue.
The original opinion of this Court is published at 628 So.2d 354. The essential facts of the case are set out in that opinion, as follows:
This Court held that the Act was inapplicable because, it held, the connection between the termite protection plan and interstate commerce was too slight, in that the parties did not contemplate substantial interstate activity when they entered into the contract. 628 So.2d at 356. Thus, we upheld the denial of the stay, based upon § 8-1-41(3), Ala.Code 1975, which prohibits specific enforcement of "[a]n agreement to submit a controversy to arbitration." The United States Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Act's language, making enforceable an arbitration provision in "a contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce," is applicable "to the limits of Congress' Commerce Clause power," and that, because the transaction in this case, in fact, involved interstate commerce, the Act was applicable and preempted state law. Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos. v. Dobson, 513 U.S. 265, ----, 115 S.Ct. 834, 837, 130 L.Ed.2d 753 (1995); 9 U.S.C. § 2. The Supreme Court remanded the cause to this Court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.
The key operative provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act are §§ 3 and 4. Section 3 provides:
"If any suit or proceeding be brought in any of the courts of the United States upon any issue referable to arbitration under an agreement in writing for such arbitration, the court in which such suit is pending, upon being satisfied that the issue involved in such suit or proceeding is referable to arbitration under such an agreement, shall on application of one of the parties stay the trial of the action until such arbitration has been had in accordance with the terms of the agreement, providing the applicant for the stay is not in default in proceeding with such arbitration."
(Emphasis added.) Section 4 provides:
(Emphasis added.)
Although the United States Supreme Court has held that the substantive provisions of the Act, §§ 1 and 2, are applicable in state courts as well as federal courts, see Southland Corp. v. Keating, 465 U.S. 1, 12, 104 S.Ct. 852, 859, 79 L.Ed.2d 1 (1984), the Court has stated that it has not held that §§ 3 and 4 are applicable in state courts. See Volt Info. Sciences, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior Univ., 489 U.S. 468, 476-77 and n. 6, 109 S.Ct. 1248, 1254-55 and n. 6, 103 L.Ed.2d 488 (1989); Southland Corp. v. Keating, 465 U.S. at 16 n. 10, 104 S.Ct. at 861 n. 10. While the Act preempts state law that actually conflicts with the federal policy favoring arbitration, it does not prevent enforcement of agreements to arbitrate under state rules of arbitration. Volt Info. Sciences, 489 U.S. at 477-79, 109 S.Ct. at 1254-56 ( ); cf. Southland Corp., 465 U.S. at 24, 104 S.Ct. at 865 (O'Connor, J., dissenting) ( ). However, § 8-1-41(3), Ala.Code 1975, provides that "[a]n agreement to submit a controversy to arbitration" cannot be specifically enforced; thus, Alabama has not developed rules of arbitration for dealing with pre-dispute agreements independent from the law that has developed in cases in which the Federal Arbitration Act applied. Because the United States Supreme Court has expanded the applicability of the Act to state courts and because our circuit courts will now face more issues concerning arbitration, we look to 9 U.S.C. §§ 3 and 4, as interpreted herein and to the extent they are applicable and consistent with otherwise-provided procedures applicable in this state, as providing information on how the federal courts would apply the Act. 2
On their face, §§ 3 and 4 appear to provide separate procedures for distinct situations, one where an action has been brought in a court upon an issue arguably referable to arbitration and the other where a party seeking arbitration petitions a court for an order requiring the other party to submit to arbitration. In practice, however, it is common for parties to seek relief under both provisions: a party involved in litigation, ordinarily brought by a party with whom the moving party has an arbitration agreement, may move the court for an order compelling arbitration under § 4 and for a stay of proceedings pending arbitration under § 3. See, e.g., Volt Info. Sciences, 489 U.S. at 471 n. 2, 109 S.Ct. at 1251 n. 2; Perry...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Knepp
...which `is guided by the intent of the parties. . . .'" Kidder, 694 So.2d at 1288 (Ala.1997) (quoting in part Allied-Bruce Terminix v. Dobson, 684 So.2d 102, 110 (Ala. 1995)). Any construction given to the language must be There is little evidence in the record regarding the parties' intenti......
-
Unum Life Ins. Co. of America v. Wright
...1248, 103 L.Ed.2d 488 (1989), that it had not held that FAA §§ 3 and 4 are applicable in state courts. In Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos. v. Dobson, 684 So.2d 102, 106 (Ala.1995), this Court observed that "Alabama has not developed rules of arbitration for dealing with pre-dispute agreements ind......
-
Cavalier Mfg., Inc. v. Jackson
...clause is broad enough to encompass the claims sought to be arbitrated.'" Kidder, supra, at 1288 (quoting Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos. v. Dobson, 684 So.2d 102, 103 (Ala.1995)). Moreover, a party may not avoid broad language in an arbitration clause by attempting to cast its complaint in tort......
-
Allstar Homes, Inc. v. Waters
...is "at issue," the court may order further proceedings before the trier of fact. 9 U.S.C. § 4; see, also, Allied-Bruce Terminix Companies v. Dobson, 684 So.2d 102, 108 (Ala.1995). "A court's duty in determining whether the making or the performance of an agreement to arbitrate is in issue i......
-
Green Tree v. Randolph: will this court's decision lessen the effect of the FAA in consumer arbitration?
...Inc. v. Foster, 775 S.2d 138 (Ala. 2000). (10) Wirtes, supra n. 3, at 105 (citing to Terminix, 513 U.S. 265, 281 (1995), reh'g denied, 684 So.2d 102 (Ala. 1996). (11) E.g. Gilmer, 500 U.S. at 30-32, accompanying infra n. 42. (12) See generally id. (13) Terminix, 513 U.S. at 283 (dissenting ......