Osteen v. T.E. Cuttino Const. Co., No. 23904
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | HARWELL |
| Citation | 434 S.E.2d 281,315 S.C. 422 |
| Parties | H. Graham OSTEEN, II and Julia R. Osteen, Respondents, v. T.E. CUTTINO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Appellant. |
| Docket Number | No. 23904 |
| Decision Date | 12 July 1993 |
Page 281
v.
T.E. CUTTINO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Appellant.
Decided July 12, 1993.
Page 282
Charles E. Carpenter, Jr., Francis M. Mack, and Deborah [315 S.C. 423] L. Harrison, all of Richardson, Plowden, Grier & Howser, P.A., Columbia, for appellant.
M.M. Weinberg, III, of Weinberg, Brown & McDougall, Sumter, for respondents.
HARWELL, Chief Justice.
We are asked to determine the enforceability of an arbitration clause contained in a standard form construction contract. The trial judge found that the arbitration clause was invalid under South Carolina law, and that the parties should proceed with their dispute in a judicial forum. We reverse.
I. FACTS
The underlying dispute arises out of the alleged breach of a contract entered into by appellant T.E. Cuttino Construction Company (Cuttino) and predecessors to respondents H. Graham Osteen, II and Julia R. Osteen (the Osteens) for the construction of a residence. 1 The Osteens filed suit in the court of common pleas, alleging numerous defects in construction and contending that Cuttino had failed to build a habitable dwelling. Cuttino moved to dismiss the action on the grounds that the contract between the parties contained an arbitration provision, and that the Osteens' remedy was to demand arbitration.
The contract between the parties is comprised of AIA Document A101 (Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Contractor 1977 Edition) and AIA Document A201 (General Conditions of the Contract for Construction 1976 Edition). AIA Document A201 contains the following language:
ARTICLE 7
7.1 Governing Law
7.1.1 The Contract shall be governed by the law of the place where the Project is located.
. . . . .
[315 S.C. 424] 7.9 Arbitration
7.9.1 All claims, disputes and other matters in question between the Contractor and the Owner arising out of, or relating to, the Contract Documents or the breach thereof ... shall be decided by arbitration in accordance with the Construction Industry Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association then obtaining unless the parties mutually agree otherwise.... The foregoing agreement to arbitrate and any other agreement to arbitrate with an additional person or persons duly consented to by the parties to the Owner-Contractor Agreement shall be specifically enforceable under the prevailing arbitration law. The award tendered by the arbitrators shall be final, and judgment may be entered upon it in accordance with the applicable law in any court having jurisdiction thereof.
At the motion hearing, the Osteens took the position that section 7.1 indicates the law of South Carolina should determine all of the rights and responsibilities of the parties, including the parties' right to enforce arbitration in accordance with South Carolina law. According to the Osteens, the arbitration clause was rendered unenforceable because the contract failed to comply with S.C.Code Ann. § 15-48-10(a) (Supp.1992). Section 15-48-10(a) provides that "[n]otice that a contract is subject to arbitration pursuant to this chapter [Uniform Arbitration Act, S.C.Code Ann. § 15-48-10 to -15-48-240 (Supp.1992) ] shall be typed in underlined capital letters, or rubber stamped prominently, on the first page
Page 283
of the contract and unless such notice is displayed thereon the contract shall not be subject to arbitration." It is undisputed that the contract does not conform to the requirements of section 15-48-10(a).Cuttino asserted that the less technical requirements of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) superseded section 15-48-10(a) because the construction project involved interstate commerce. 2 The trial judge found that South Carolina law regulated arbitration under the contract, and ruled that because [315 S.C. 425] the formal requirements of section 15-48-10(a) had not been met, the dispute was not subject to arbitration.
II. DISCUSSION
Cuttino contends that the trial judge erred in holding that the parties contractually agreed that the provisions of section 15-48-10(a) would supersede the countervailing provisions of the FAA. According to Cuttino, the formal notice requirements of section 15-48-10(a) are preempted by the FAA, which mandates only that the arbitration agreement be in writing.
Section 2 of the FAA provides:
A written provision in any ... contract...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ward v. West Oil Co., Inc., No. 4389.
...contract in a manner that gives effect to all of its provisions, if the court reasonably may do so. Osteen v. T.E. Cuttino Const. Co., 315 S.C. 422, 427, 434 S.E.2d 281, 284 (1993). An agreement capable of an interpretation 665 S.E.2d 627 which will make it valid will be given such an inter......
-
Tatibouet v. Ellsworth, No. 22551
...limiting the authority of arbitrators" when the arbitration came within the Federal Arbitration Act); Osteen v. T.E. Cuttino Constr. Co., 315 S.C. 422, 434 S.E.2d 281, 284 (1993) (holding that the governing law provision of a contract, although separate from the arbitration agreement clause......
-
Volvo Const. Equip. North America v. Clm Equip., No. 03-1108.
...agreement should be construed to give effect to all of its provisions. See Osteen v. T.E. Cuttino Constr. Co., 315 Page 616 S.C. 422, 434 S.E.2d 281, 284 (1993). The majority's interpretation gives no effect to the Local Law Provision. In my opinion, CLM is entitled to the protection of the......
-
Zabinski v. Bright Acres Associates, No. 25358.
...prominently, on the first page of the contract. No other variation is acceptable. See also Osteen v. T.E. Cuttino Constr. Co., 315 S.C. 422, 434 S.E.2d 281 (1993) (holding formal requirements of section 15-48-10(a) must be met before the dispute can be subject to arbitration); Timms v. Gree......
-
Ward v. West Oil Co., Inc., No. 4389.
...contract in a manner that gives effect to all of its provisions, if the court reasonably may do so. Osteen v. T.E. Cuttino Const. Co., 315 S.C. 422, 427, 434 S.E.2d 281, 284 (1993). An agreement capable of an interpretation 665 S.E.2d 627 which will make it valid will be given such an inter......
-
Tatibouet v. Ellsworth, No. 22551
...limiting the authority of arbitrators" when the arbitration came within the Federal Arbitration Act); Osteen v. T.E. Cuttino Constr. Co., 315 S.C. 422, 434 S.E.2d 281, 284 (1993) (holding that the governing law provision of a contract, although separate from the arbitration agreement clause......
-
Volvo Const. Equip. North America v. Clm Equip., No. 03-1108.
...agreement should be construed to give effect to all of its provisions. See Osteen v. T.E. Cuttino Constr. Co., 315 Page 616 S.C. 422, 434 S.E.2d 281, 284 (1993). The majority's interpretation gives no effect to the Local Law Provision. In my opinion, CLM is entitled to the protection of the......
-
Zabinski v. Bright Acres Associates, No. 25358.
...prominently, on the first page of the contract. No other variation is acceptable. See also Osteen v. T.E. Cuttino Constr. Co., 315 S.C. 422, 434 S.E.2d 281 (1993) (holding formal requirements of section 15-48-10(a) must be met before the dispute can be subject to arbitration); Timms v. Gree......