Polaris Sales, Inc. v. HERITAGE IMPORTS

• Court: Supreme Court of Alabama
• Writing for the Court: HOUSTON, Justice.
• Citation: 879 So.2d 1129
• Parties: POLARIS SALES, INC. v. HERITAGE IMPORTS, INC.
• Decision Date: 03 October 2003

879 So.2d 1129

POLARIS SALES, INC.
v.
HERITAGE IMPORTS, INC

1021166.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

October 3, 2003.

879 So.2d 1130

David L. Kane of Cabaniss, Johnston, Gardner, Dumas & O'Neal, Mobile, for appellant

Braxton L. Kittrell of Gardner, Middlebrooks, Gibbons & Kittrell, P.C., Mobile; and David A. Bagwell, Fairhope, for appellee.

HOUSTON, Justice.

Polaris Sales, Inc., appeals from an order denying its motion to compel arbitration of a dispute with Heritage Imports, Inc.¹ We reverse and remand.

879 So.2d 1131

I. Facts and Procedural History

Polaris is a Minnesota corporation engaged in the sale and distribution of recreational vehicles, including personal watercraft and all-terrain vehicles, to independent dealers who are authorized to sell "Polaris products"² to retail customers. Heritage, which is located in Fairhope, Alabama, is engaged in the business of selling recreational vehicles to retail customers.

Heritage and Polaris entered into an agreement pursuant to which Heritage was appointed as a dealer to sell certain Polaris products from its store in Fairhope and Polaris agreed to sell those Polaris products to Heritage for resale to retail customers ("the dealer agreement"). In the dealer agreement, Heritage and Polaris contracted to arbitrate the following:

"All disputes, controversies, and claims arising out of or in connection with the. . . interpretation . . . of this Agreement, or of any provision of this Agreement (including without limitation this arbitration provision and the arbitrability of any issue), or arising out of or in connection with any claimed duty, right, or remedy (whether arising under this Agreement or any statute, regulation, ordinance, or other rule of law or otherwise) relating to any of the foregoing. . . ."

The dealer agreement also stated:

"Polaris reserves the right to appoint any other dealers at any other location in its sole discretion. [Heritage] acknowledges it has not been granted any area of primary responsibility or of exclusivity.

". . . .

"[Heritage] may not assign, transfer or sell all or any part of its rights or obligations under this Agreement without first providing Polaris with prior written notice and receiving the prior written consent of Polaris. Any attempt to do so without such prior written consent shall be wholly void and without effect. If [Heritage] desires to assign, transfer, or sell any rights, arising under any applicable law, regarding resale of the Products, Polaris will have the first option to acquire any such rights. If [Heritage] desires to seek written consent from Polaris to assign, transfer or sell all or any part of its rights or obligations under this Agreement, [Heritage] must have submitted all information required in the New Dealer Packet. [Heritage] acknowledges that Polaris cannot and will not begin to review the applicant's qualifications until all such information is submitted. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the permitted successors and assigns of [Heritage] and the successors and assigns of Polaris."

This action began as an effort to collect money Heritage owed Polaris Acceptance ("Acceptance"), arising out of Heritage's failure to repay Acceptance for money Acceptance had advanced Heritage to purchase inventory from Polaris. Heritage expanded the action by adding Polaris as a third-party defendant and asserting a cross-claim against Polaris and a counter-claim against Acceptance alleging intentional interference with a contract.

Heritage's cross-claim alleges that Heritage and a third party entered into a contract pursuant to which the third party agreed to purchase Heritage's recreational-vehicle dealership, its inventory, and its franchise rights. This contract allegedly included a clause stating that the transaction

879 So.2d 1132

was contingent upon Polaris's approval. Heritage claims that Polaris intentionally interfered with this contract by inducing the third party to dishonor its contract with Heritage and to contract directly with Polaris

Polaris moved the trial court to compel arbitration of Heritage's cross-claim, based on the arbitration provision in the dealer agreement. The trial court granted Polaris's motion to compel arbitration and transferred the action to the administrative docket pending the completion of arbitration. Approximately four months later, Polaris moved the lower court to dismiss Heritage's cross-claim against it on the ground that Heritage failed to prosecute its claim because it had failed to initiate arbitration proceedings.

In response to Polaris's motion to dismiss, Heritage moved the court to dissolve the stay and to reinstate the case on the active docket. The court, in response to Heritage's motion, vacated its earlier order compelling arbitration. Polaris appeals.

II. Analysis

Appellate review of an order denying a motion to compel arbitration is de novo. Kenworth of Birmingham, Inc. v. Langley, 828 So.2d 288, 290 (Ala.2002). The party seeking to compel arbitration has the initial burden of proving the existence of a written contract calling for arbitration and proving that that contract evidences a transaction involving interstate commerce. Ameriquest Mortgage Co. v. Bentley, 851 So.2d 458 (Ala.2002). "`"[A]fter a motion to compel arbitration has been made and supported, the burden is on the non-movant to present evidence that the supposed...