|
The Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed an order denying arbitration holding that no reasonable person would agree to arbitrate the underlying claims of fraud, forgery, and identity theft.
In Rogers-Dabbs Chevrolet-Hummer, Inc. v. Blakeney, No. 2005-IA-00125-SCT, 2007 WL 529281 (Miss. Feb. 22, 2007), Keith Blakeney purchased a Hummer vehicle from Rogers-Dabbs. As part of the purchase, he signed an arbitration agreement.
Subsequently, Blakeney experienced problems with the vehicle, never received title although he had paid in cash, and also became aware that a stolen vehicle bearing the same VIN number as his vehicle had been recovered in another state. The purchase agreement for the stolen vehicle, purchased from a Georgia dealership, had been forged with Blakeney's signature.
Blakely brought suit against Rogers-Dabbs alleging numerous complaints, including fraud and invasion of privacy. Roger-Dabbs moved to compel arbitration. The trial court denied its motion on all but one of the complaints alleged. Roger-Dabbs motion for interlocutory appeal was granted.
The Court rejected Rogers-Dabbs argument that the language of the arbitration clause included the issues in question within its scope. Blakeney does not dispute that he agreed to arbitrate disputes arising out of the purchase. However, the Court held that no individual purchasing a vehicle would contractually agree to forego rights to a jury trial to address crimes of fraud, forgery, and identity theft committed against them in relation to the sale. The Court acknowledged the strong federal policy in favor of arbitration. However, it reasoned that this ruling did not contradict that policy because the claims were not within the scope of the arbitration agreement.
Subscribe to a free weekly update on ADR case law and
legislation
|