|
While the Texas Arbitration Act (TAA) allows a court to appoint an alternate arbitrator should the arbitrator designated in the agreement become unwilling or unable to serve, the agreement’s failure to designate the Texas act as controlling prohibits the court from making such an appointment, according to a Texas appellate court.
In In re Texas Best Staff Leasing, Inc., Nos. 01-08-00296-CV, 01-08-00418-CV, 2008 WL 4531028 (Tex. App. Oct. 9, 2008), Herrera was hired by Texas Best Staff Leasing (TBSL) to work at one of its clients. Herrera was injured on the job and brought claims against TBSL for negligence. TBSL moved to compel arbitration of the claims in accordance with an arbitration agreement entered at the commencement of employment. The trial court denied the motion to compel.
On writ of mandamus, TBSL argued that the trial court abused its discretion by denying its motion to compel. Specifically, it alleged that the trial court incorrectly determined that the agreement was not governed by the TAA, which provided a remedy for enforcing the agreement even though the designated arbitration administrator had ceased operations at the time the claim arose. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 171.041(b).
The Court rejected this argument, noting that the agreement never stated that it was governed by the TAA. According to the Court, the agreement’s failure to designate its controlling arbitration law resulted in the exclusive application of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).
Because TBSL had failed to argue that the FAA could save an ineffective appointment at the trial court, and because the TAA did not apply to the instant agreement, the Court refused to grant TBSL’s writ of mandamus.
Subscribe to a free weekly update on ADR case law and
legislation
|