|
A Washington state appellate court has held that a notice of initiation of arbitration proceedings sent via email does not comply with the delivery requirements in Washington's Uniform Arbitration Act.
In Westcott Homes LLC v. Chamness, No. 60762-6-I, 2008 WL 4210480 (Wash. Ct. App. Sept. 15, 2008), Westcott and Chamness were involved in a protracted series of disputes regarding an easement across Chamness' land. A third-party developer allegedly damaged Chamness' land during construction, and Chamness demanded remedial damages.
After remedial work was completed on the property, Westcott's attorney, Young, contacted Chamness' attorney, Jacobs, to acknowledge the receipt of a release of Westcott's liability regarding some of the damages, to discuss the possibility of dismissing Westcott from all pending litigation, or, in the alternative, to proceed to arbitration. After Jacobs had filed a notice of withdrawal with the court, Young emailed Jacobs stating that "Westcott is going to want to proceed to arbitrate the dispute." The email also suggested a list of local arbitrators, but did not outline the matters still in dispute or the remedies sought.
After Young did not receive a response from Jacobs or Chamness, Westcott filed suit against Chamness and petitioned the trial court for a stay pending arbitration. Chamness moved to dismiss, alleging that Westcott had failed to timely initiate arbitration and that its email demand did not comply with statutory notice requirements. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss.
On appeal, Westcott argued that its notice was sufficient because the Uniform Arbitration Act's (UAA) general notice provision does not require the use of certified or registered mail. Rev. Code Wash. § 7.04A.020. The Court disagreed, noting that the UAA included a specific notice requirement for initiating arbitration, which superseded the general notice requirements. Rev. Code Wash. § 7.04A.090. Because § 7.04A.090 required notice "by mail certified or registered," an emailed notice such as Westcott's did not comply with the delivery requirements for a notice initiating arbitration.
Furthermore, the Court held that, even if Westcott's email notice "substantially complied" with the method of delivery requirements in § 7.04A.090, it did not substantially comply with the content requirements in the statute for initiation. Specifically, the Court observed that arbitration initiation under § 7.04.090 "must describe the nature of the controversy and the remedy sought." Because the email did not mention the nature of the dispute or the remedy sought, the notification did not comply and was not effective.
Accordingly, the Court affirmed the trial court's order dismissing Westcott's claims.
Subscribe to a free weekly update on ADR case law and
legislation
|