|
Without evidence that the parent signed the agreement for their benefit or as their representative, minor children cannot be compelled to arbitrate loss of parental consortium claims pursuant to an agreement to arbitrate their parent’s employment-related claims, according to the Texas Court of Appeals.
In In re SSP Partners, No. 13-07-00291-CV, 2007 WL 2948313 (Tex. App. Oct. 11, 2007), Garcia, an employee of SSP, agreed to participate in the company’s employee injury benefit plan. The plan included an agreement to arbitrate all disputes arising between the company and employees.
Garcia was later injured while at work. A dispute arose over the medical benefits available to Garcia, and Garcia pursued arbitration of her individual claims against SSP. During arbitration, SSP also sought to arbitrate any claims against SSP by Garcia’s minor children. Resisting SSP’s request, Garcia brought a lawsuit alleging loss of parental consortium on behalf of her children, maintaining the consortium claims were not within the scope of the arbitration agreement.
The trial court agreed, determining that the parental consortium claims were not arbitrable because the children were not parties to the arbitration agreement and because their claims were not within the scope of the agreement. SSP petitioned the Court for a writ of mandamus, asking that the consortium claims be compelled to arbitration.
The Court denied the writ of mandamus, finding that the issue of the agreement’s validity was properly decided by the trial court, that no valid agreement to arbitrate existed between the children and SSP, and that the consortium claims were independent and outside the scope of the arbitration agreement.
SSP had maintained that there was “unmistakable evidence” in the language of the agreement that the parties intended the validity of the agreement to be an arbitrable issue. The Court disagreed, holding the agreement invalid as to the children because the children were not parties to the agreement, the agreement only specified that Garcia’s claims were subject to arbitration, and that the agreement did not expressly incorporate claims brought by her children.
SSP also maintained that the children were bound to arbitrate in accordance with the express language in the agreement. The Court was again unpersuaded, finding no such language binding the minors and no evidence that Garcia signed the agreement on behalf of the children or as their representative.
SSP finally argued that the children were bound to the agreement as third-party and direct beneficiaries of the contract. While the Court acknowledged that such beneficiaries could be bound to arbitrate claims in some circumstances, the Court found no reason to bind the children to the agreement in this case.
Specifically, the Court found no evidence that Garcia had entered the contract for the children’s benefit or that the children were seeking or obtaining benefits from the contract. Instead, according to the Court, the children were bringing claims for loss of parental consortium that were derivative yet independent causes of action in tort against SSP, claims that did not invoke the contract containing the arbitration clause.
Subscribe to a free weekly update on ADR case law and
legislation
|