A federal court in Illinois interpreted an arbitration agreement to permit an award of attorney fees where the consumer won in arbitration and was compelled to enforce the agreement in court.

In Reid v. Harvey Motorcycle and Camper, No. 05 C 5375, 2007 WL 4277435 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 30, 2007), William Reid and Renee Picl attempted to purchase a vehicle from HMC. They were subjected to numerous questionable sales and financing tactics which culminated in Picl filing a lawsuit against HMC for numerous violations of state and federal consumer protection statutes.

Picl's claims against HMC were resolved through arbitration. Reid was not a signatory to the contracts. He filed an individual amended claim against HMC. Picl joined the claim, seeking attorney fees which stemmed from her efforts to enforce the arbitrator's award.

Reid's claims were dismissed because he could prove harm separate from the harm to Picl's already adjudicated claims.

However, the Court found that Picl had alleged sufficient facts in her claim for attorney's fees to survive HMC's motion for summary judgment. Although normally courts follow the American rule, that each party is responsible for its own attorneys fees, there is an exception where parties have contractually agreed otherwise.

Here, the arbitration agreement stated that if either party is "required to enforce [the] agreement in court, the prevailing party in such proceeding shall be entitled to its attorneys' fees and costs incurred in doing so."

HMC breached its agreement with Picl by attempting to set aside the arbitrator's award. HMC was compelled by the Court to obey the contract, "to accept the contractual agreement that the arbitration award is final and binding," and thus the facts alleged by Picl adequately support her claim for attorney fees. See Powers v. Rockford Stop-N-Go, Inc., 761 N.E.2d 237, 241 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001).

Accordingly, HMC's motion for summary judgment was denied.