|
A federal district court in Florida ruled that a nonsignatory could invoke an arbitration agreement under the doctrine of equitable estoppel because the claims against the nonsignatory were based on the same facts and circumstances as claims being brought against signatories to the agreement.
In Smart v. Bob Wilson Dodge Inc., No. 806-CV-22T-30TGW, 2006 WL 3837530 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 29, 2006), Smart financed the purchase of an automobile from Bob Wilson Dodge through Americredit Consumer Loan Corporation ("Americredit"). The contract between the parties contained an arbitration clause. After Smart defaulted on the loan, Americredit hired A-Expert Recovery (A-Expert) to recover the vehicle.
Smart subsequently sued A-Expert, Americredit, and Dodge for alleged misconduct in connection with A-Expert's attempts to recover the vehicle. A-Expert filed a motion to compel arbitration despite being a nonsignatory to the contract containing the arbitration clause.
The Court concluded that A-Expert could invoke the arbitration agreement despite being a nonsignatory because the claims against A-Expert "assert[ed] interdependent and concerted misconduct by both the nonsignatory and one or more of the signatories to the contract." Accordingly, the Court ordered that Smart's claims against A-Expert be arbitrated.
Subscribe to a free weekly update on ADR case law and
legislation
|