|
The Idaho Supreme Court held that arbitration should proceed even though the designated administrator refused to accept the matter for lack of a post-dispute agreement to arbitrate.
In Deeds v. Regence Blueshield of Idaho, No. 31180, 2006 WL 2089247 (Idaho July 28, 2006), Deeds sued Regence seeking reimbursement under a health insurance policy that provided for “arbitration in accordance with the applicable rules of the American Arbitration Association [“the AAA”].”
The trial court granted Regence’s motion to compel arbitration, but Deeds later discovered that the AAA had implemented a policy whereby it “no longer accept[s] the administration of cases involving individual patients without a post-dispute agreement to arbitrate.” When Deeds refused to sign a post-dispute agreement, the trial court vacated its arbitration order and set the matter for trial.
After determining that the trial court’s order was appealable, the Court considered whether the arbitration clause was enforceable despite the AAA’s requirement of a post-dispute agreement. The Court concluded that arbitration should “proceed ‘in accordance with the applicable rules of the AAA’ using a different arbitrator.”
In reaching this conclusion, the Court reasoned that the appointment of a AAA arbitrator was unnecessary because “the AAA rules governing th[e] dispute are simple procedural rules of general applicability.” Moreover, Deeds presented “no evidence that the AAA itself [wa]s central to the agreement to arbitrate.”
Lastly, the Court observed, the Idaho Uniform Arbitration Act provides for court appointment of an arbitrator “if the agreed method fails or for any reason can’t be followed.” Accordingly, the Court remanded the case to the trial court to appoint an arbitrator.
The Court’s decision is in harmony with Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama v. Rigas, 923 So. 2d 1077 (Ala. 2005), which involved the same AAA policy. In Rigas, the Alabama Supreme Court noted the general rule: “Where the arbitrator named in the arbitration agreement cannot or will not arbitrate the dispute, a court does not void the agreement but instead appoints a different arbitrator.”
Subscribe to a free weekly update on ADR case law and
legislation
|