In ordering arbitration of an insurance dispute, a federal district court in Mississippi refused to entertain the policy holder's claim of procedural unconscionability because the procedural irregularities pertained to the insurance policy as a whole and not solely to the arbitration agreement.

In Guy v. Quality Health Services, Inc., No. CIV.A.2:08CV28KSRHW, 2008 WL 919702 (S.D. Miss. Apr. 3, 2008), Guy bought a short-term disability insurance policy from AFLAC. Following an illness and hospitalization, Guy sued AFLAC and others, alleging that AFLAC was liable for a bad faith refusal to make payments under the policy.

AFLAC filed a motion to compel arbitration in accordance with the policy. In opposing the motion, Guy argued that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable and therefore unenforceable. Specifically, she claimed that the arbitration agreement was procedurally unconscionable because the singing ceremony occurred not in an office but in the backseat of the insurance agent's vehicle.

The Court concluded that Guy's allegations were a matter for the arbitrator, rather than the court, because they pertained to the insurance policy as a whole and not solely to the arbitration agreement. Accordingly, the Court granted AFLAC's motion to compel arbitration.