In ordering arbitration of a loan dispute, a federal district court in Pennsylvania rejected the borrower’s unconscionability challenge to the arbitration agreement as lacking in evidentiary support.

In Prousi v. Bankcorp Bank, No. 08-2208, 2008 WL 4083178 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 28, 2008), Prousi sued Bankcorp for predatory lending, asserting that Bankcorp used unfair and deceptive acts to induce Prousi to execute construction loan documents. In response, Bankcorp filed a motion to compel arbitration pursuant to an arbitration agreement in the loan documents. The arbitration agreement provided that all disputes, claims or controversies would be arbitrated pursuant to the National Arbitration Forum Code of Procedure and the Federal Arbitration Act.

Prousi opposed the motion to compel by arguing that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable and therefore unenforceable.

As the Court noted, as the party challenging the arbitration agreement, Prousi had the burden of proving unconscionability. However, Prousi did not produce any evidence to support his claim. Nor did he cite any case law that would support this argument.

The Court explained that "case law supporting arbitration agreements should be respected" and, given the lack of any evidentiary support for Prousi’s challenge, granted Bankcorp’s motion to compel arbitration.