|
Because his "loss of consortium" claim was based upon the same alleged breach of duties that his wife claimed led to her own injuries, the Alabama Supreme Court has ruled that the husband is bound by the terms of the arbitration agreement signed by his wife.
In Ritter v. Grady Automotive Group, Inc., No. 1051362, 2007 WL 1454458 (Ala. May 18, 2007), Jennifer Ritter bought a new 2003 BMW 745Li from Grady Automotive Group, Inc. (Grady). As part of the purchase process, she signed an arbitration agreement. Her husband, Daryl, did not accompany her to the dealership, and signed no papers.
Several months after purchasing the car, Jennifer was involved in a traffic accident. The airbags did not deploy, her seat belt allegedly did not hold her, and she suffered injuries. Jennifer filed suit for various breach of duties; Daryl filed suit for loss of consortium.
Grady moved to compel arbitration of all claims based upon the agreement signed by Jennifer. Daryl argued that because he had not signed, he was not bound by the agreement. The Court disagreed.
Noting that his injury stemmed from Jennifer's purchase of the car, and was caused "by the same breach of duties that his wife says resulted in her injury," the Court stated that Daryl could not "have it both ways." He could not claim the benefit of some contract terms and refuse to abide by obligations of the other terms.
In essence, because Daryl's claim was based upon the contract containing the arbitration clause, the Court held that he was bound by its terms, and upheld the arbitration order.
Subscribe to a free weekly update on ADR case law and
legislation
|