Beaufort Engineering Services, Inc. d/b/a BES, Inc. v. Baldwin County Cattle & Fair Association, Inc. (Appeal from Baldwin Circuit Court: CV-08-118). Affirmed. No Opinion.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL:09/30/2009 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e Reporter o f Decisions, A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ( ( 3 3 4 ) 2 2 9 ¬ 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA SPECIAL TERM, 2009 1071132 Beaufort Engineering S e r v i c e s , I n c . , d/b/a BES, I n c . v. Baldwin County C a t t l e Appeal PER from Baldwin C i r c u i t (CV-08-118) Court CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See R u l e Cobb, and & F a i r A s s o c i a t i o n ,Inc. OPINION. 53(a)(1) and ( a ) ( 2 ) ( F ) , C.J., and Woodall, Murdock, Lyons, NO Stuart, J J . , concur. J . , concurs Shaw, J . , d i s s e n t s . specially. A l a . R. A p p . P. Smith, Bolin, Parker, 1071132 LYONS, Justice I write (concurring specially). s p e c i a l l y t o r e s p o n d t o J u s t i c e Shaw's dissenting opinion. The dissenting opinion independent theories. that the dispute First, relies on two the d i s s e n t i n g opinion under the o r a l c o n t r a c t Baldwin Services, County Cattle Association."). the terms I n c . , d/b/a and Turning as a p a r t first Inc. ("BES"), and ("the Fair Association contract concludes that t o , and were apply o f , the subsequent to the conclusion concludes between B e a u f o r t Second, the d i s s e n t i n g o p i n i o n o f the a r c h i t e c t u r e incorporated BES, Fair and a r o s e o u t o f , o r was r e l a t e d to, the w r i t t e n a r c h i t e c t u r e contract Engineering separate that oral contract. the o r a l contract a r o s e o u t o f , o r was r e l a t e d t o , t h e a r c h i t e c t u r e contract therefore that architecture contract applies the a r b i t r a t i o n clause to a dispute do not here deal with of a contract presented (Ala. 1996). arbitrability containing i n Elizabeth 2007), and regarding an v. the o r a l contract, o f tort claims a r b i t r a t i o n clause Homes, Koullas i n the L.L.C. Ramsey, v. 683 Cato, So. we a r i s i n g out such 968 2d as So. was 2d 1 415 ( A l a . A d i s t i n c t i o n e x i s t s between such cases and cases 2 and such 1071132 as in t h i s one, where t h e q u e s t i o n separate arbitration v. contracts clause. where i s the a r b i t r a b i l i t y only See M i r a n t contract Americas 1 s t R o c h d a l e Coop. Group, L t d . , (S.D.N.Y. one o f claims contains Energy Marketing LP 363 F. S u p p . 2 d 6 7 9 , 6 8 1 - 8 2 2005): "While federal policy 'strongly favors arbitration,' and arbitration clauses should therefore be c o n s t r u e d 'as broadly as p o s s i b l e , ' C o l l i n s & A i k m a n P r o d s . Co. B l d g . Sys., Inc., 58 F.3d 1 6 , 19 (2d C i r . 1 9 9 5 ) , ultimately, since a r b i t r a t i o n i s a c o n t r a c t u a l matter governed by the p a r t i e s ' s t a t e d i n t e n t , a p a r t y c a n n o t be r e q u i r e d to submit a claim to a r b i t r a t i o n without i t s contractual consent, express or implied, JLM I n d u s t r i e s , I n c . v . S t o l t - N i e l s e n SA, 387 F . 3 d 1 6 3 , 171 ( 2 d C i r . 2 0 0 4 ) . The q u e s t i o n , therefore, i s whether the a r b i t r a t i o n clause i n the Credit A g r e e m e n t c a n be c o n s t r u e d as c o v e r i n g a dispute t h a t d o e s n o t a r i s e o u t o f an a l l e g e d b r e a c h o f t h a t agreement and does n o t r e q u i r e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h a t agreement. " I t i s c l e a r t h a t , u n d e r some c i r c u m s t a n c e s , an a r b i t r a t i o n clause i n a c o n t r a c t can bind p a r t i e s to a r b i t r a t i o n e v e n when t h e c l a i m i s n o t b r e a c h o f that contract. However, the Second Circuit has s t r u g g l e d t o a r t i c u l a t e a u s e f u l t e s t o f when t h o s e circumstances are found. See i d . at 172-73 ( a c k n o w l e d g i n g t h a t t e s t s do n o t y i e l d ' p r i n c i p l e d way' of determining which claims should be a r b i t r a t e d ) ; M e h l e r v . T e r m i n i x I n t ' l Co. L . P . , 205 F . 3 d 4 4 , 50 ( 2 d C i r . 2 0 0 0 ) ( c o l l e c t i n g v a r i o u s t e s t s C i r c u i t has s t a t e d , s e e m i n g l y i n t e r c h a n g e a b l y ) . In some c a s e s , t h e C i r c u i t h a s r e q u i r e d t h e c l a i m t o 'implicate issues of contract construction or the p a r t i e s ' r i g h t s and o b l i g a t i o n s under' the c o n t r a c t containing the a r b i t r a t i o n clause, Louis Dreyfus 3 an 1071132 N e g o c e v . B l y s t a d S h i p p i n g & T r a d i n g , I n c . , 252 F.3d 2 1 8 , 225 (2d C i r . 2 0 0 1 ) ; C o l l i n s & A i k m a n , 58 F . 3 d at 23, w h i l e i n o t h e r s i t has r e q u i r e d o n l y t h a t the claim ' t o u c h m a t t e r s ' c o v e r e d by the c o n t r a c t , a test w h i c h p o t e n t i a l l y sweeps a b r o a d e r set of claims into arbitration, Genesco, Inc. v. T. Kakiuchi & Co., L t d . , 815 F.2d 840, 846 (2d C i r . 1987). "On c l o s e r s c r u t i n y , however, i t i s apparent t h a t t h e c a s e s e m p l o y i n g t h e ' t o u c h m a t t e r s ' t e s t do not involve a choice between two contracts (as here), or, indeed, contractual claims at a l l . Instead, i n these cases p l a i n t i f f s have sued i n t o r t , a l l e g i n g m i s d e e d s by d e f e n d a n t s r e l a t e d t o t h e m a k i n g and p e r f o r m a n c e o f t h e c o n t r a c t s . See JLM Industries, 387 F.3d at 176 (antitrust claims alleging that defendants conspired to fix artificially high prices through a series of contracts were 'arising out of' the contract); G e n e s c o , 815 F.2d a t 8 4 5 - 4 7 (RICO c l a i m s a l l e g i n g t h a t s u p p l i e r s engaged i n c o n s p i r a c y to overcharge and s u p p l y d e f e c t i v e g o o d s were ' m a t t e r s r e l a t i n g t o the agreements between the p a r t i e s ' ) ; see also K e r r - M c G e e R e f i n i n g C o r p . v . M/T T r i u m p h , 924 F.2d 467, 468-69 (2d C i r . 1991). Indeed, the 'touch matters' language o r i g i n a t e d i n M i t s u b i s h i Motors C o r p . v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 4 73 U.S. 614, 624 n. 13, 105 S.Ct. 3 3 4 6 , 87 L.Ed.2d 444 ( 1 9 8 5 ) , w h i c h i t s e l f i n v o l v e d an a l l e g e d conspiracy to v i o l a t e the Sherman A c t . "On t h e o t h e r h a n d , w h e r e , as h e r e , t h e q u e s t i o n i s w h e t h e r t h e a r b i t r a t i o n c l a u s e i n one contract should govern a c l a i m a l l e g i n g b r e a c h of a d i f f e r e n t c o n t r a c t , t h e S e c o n d C i r c u i t c o n s i s t e n t l y has a s k e d whether the claim requires construction of the contract that contains the a r b i t r a t i o n clause or otherwise implicates the parties' rights and o b l i g a t i o n s under that c o n t r a c t . See L o u i s D r e y f u s , 252 F . 3 d a t 2 2 8 - 2 9 ; C o l l i n s & A i k m a n , 58 F.3d a t 2 3 ; see a l s o L e w i s v. N.J. S p o r t s P r o d s . , I n c . , [ N o . 02 4 1071132 Civ. 6505 (collecting (Emphasis to architecture contract o r a l agreement. the aid other is The contract as an event to BES construction of Although performance the was that the dispute the So. under to be subject arbitration, c a n n o t be the 2003) 2d]." under is no nothing of the the 2d an 418, dealing the matter of the i t must at the without itself." record before us contract to in in Koullas v. whether to that "in and 5 the expressed contract, of to reference or thus least raise a reference oral contract. out H e r e any alleged rule arising very whole. stated We with a p e r f o r m a n c e of oral a r b i t r a t i o n clause as the no requiring as architecture alleged of future; rule i n the d i f f e r e n t than characterized resolved contract at i n the in f o r the formation actually refers the work A m e r i c a s E n e r g y M a r k e t i n g LP. R a m s e y , 683 claims law the agreements the I see construction dispute Alabama Mirant of occur under contemporaneous contract, requires resolve to a necessary predicate architecture predated architecture contract available thus contract 12, 2003](S.D.N.Y. r e p o r t e d i n F. S u p p . added.) Here the the SAS, March c a s e s ) [not or to sweep order for a relating to subject to some i s s u e construction the tort that of architecture 1071132 contract is existence nothing and determination more not of a any than an referral issues. contract determine i s s u e of b r e a c h of cannot accept the dispute under to, the architecture The dissenting requires dissenting the oral opinion part the oral of the opinion notes apply contract trial the no the arose of, to, as and that were court's judgment. i n the t h e r e i n by reference, with the compensation p r o v i s i o n s thereof.'" __ entered Association] that the related to then p o i n t s to the of which BES, into we in an would oral do 6 terms of the as the dissenting trial Oral court that So. he a t __ . The of W i l l i a m W. 3d [with at and of stated: work of exception affidavit agreement that Contract, the a for other m a t e r i a l p r o v i s i o n s incorporated we that was The are time], I incorporated [architecture c o n t r a c t ] apply president to contract, or the the Bolton, the additional justification argument p r e s e n t e d opinion of order conclusion out concludes " ' [ t ] h e a r b i t r a t i o n p r o v i s i o n and dissenting the provision alleged oral opinion's its for terms interpretation in contract contract reversal its of contract. architecture of, to Because architecture the acknowledgment our "'[At that the Fair customary 1071132 hourly were So. rates, but otherwise t h e same 3d a t _ _ . The contention reversal in incorporation the i n BES's reference featured oral dissenting of the t r i a l to the of that oral agreement o f t h e [ a r c h i t e c t u r e c o n t r a c t ] . ' " __ and t h e e v i d e n c e Nowhere any as t h o s e t h e terms opinion i n support court's order principal the then to this aforementioned dissenting o f t h e terms thereof denying brief opinion relies on this t o argue f o r arbitration. Court testimony dealing i s there of Bolton with the of the a r c h i t e c t u r e contract into contract. " I t i s fundamental t h a t t h e p a r t i e s have t h e duty to include i n t h e i r b r i e f s a statement of a l l facts relevant to the issues presented f o r this Court's review. I n d e e d , A l a . R. A p p . P. 28 m a k e s that duty c r y s t a l c l e a r . I n i t i a l l y , the appellant's b r i e f must i n c l u d e '[a] f u l l statement of f a c t s relevant to the issues presented f o r review, with appropriate references to the record.' Rule 28(a)(7) (emphasis added). Rule 28(b) r e q u i r e s t h e appellee to conform to the requirements of s u b d i v i s i o n ( a ) ( 7 ) , i f 'theappellee i s d i s s a t i s f i e d with [ t h e ] s t a t e m e n t s a s made b y t h e a p p e l l a n t . ' A l s o , t h e argument o f e a c h p a r t y must c o n t a i n ' t h e contentions of the [party] with respect to the issues presented, and t h e reasons t h e r e f o r , with c i t a t i o n s t o t h e ... p a r t s o f t h e r e c o r d r e l i e d o n . ' R u l e 2 8 ( a ) ( 1 0 ) ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . Where t h e a p p e l l e e m a k e s no c o r r e c t i o n o r a d d i t i o n t o t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s statement of the f a c t s , ' [ t ] h e s t a t e m e n t s made b y appellant ... w i l l be t a k e n t o be a c c u r a t e and sufficient f o r decision.' T a y l o r v. F i r s t Nat'l Bank o f T u s c a l o o s a , 2 7 9 A l a . 6 2 4 , 6 2 8 , 189 S o . 2 d 7 1071132 141, 144 ( 1 9 6 6 ) . Obviously, '"this Court i s not under a duty to search the record i n order to a s c e r t a i n whether i t contains evidence that will sustain a contention made b y e i t h e r p a r t y t o an a p p e a l . " ' B r a n n a n & G u y , P.C. v . C i t y o f M o n t g o m e r y , 828 S o . 2 d 9 1 4 , 920 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) ( q u o t i n g T o t t e n v . L i g h t i n g & S u p p l y , I n c . , 507 S o . 2 d 5 0 2 , 5 0 3 ( A l a . 19 8 7 ) ) . " Johnson v. Stewart, 2002)(opinion to assume appellate that brief the relied facts to this 2d set forth are " s u f f i c i e n t 544, We a r e e n t i t l e d i n BES's for decision." on i n t h e d i s s e n t i n g Court 551-52 ( A l a . principal As noted, does n o t r e f e r t o t h e a s p e c t o f B o l t o n ' s BES's e n t i r e argument brief So. on a p p l i c a t i o n f o r r e h e a r i n g ) . BES's p r i n c i p a l b r i e f testimony 854 as t o t h i s opinion. issue in its principal i s as f o l l o w s : " I t i s reasonable t o assume t h a t t h e p a r t i e s ' reference i n their [architecture contract] to a s e c o n d a g r e e m e n t t o b e made l a t e r , i n v o l v i n g the same u n d e r l y i n g t r a n s a c t i o n , w o u l d o t h e r w i s e include the same t e r m s a s t h e i r [architecture contract]. For that reason, we s u b m i t t h a t t h e a r b i t r a t i o n p r o v i s i o n i n t h e [ a r c h i t e c t u r e c o n t r a c t ] s h o u l d be deemed i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o t h e l a t e r O r a l Contract." Only 28(a)(10), by ignoring A l a . R. A p p . P., t h a t must c o n t a i n the completely "the contentions issues presented, the requirements t h e argument of the [party] of each with and t h e reasons t h e r e f o r , w i t h 8 of Rule party respect to citations 1071132 to the trial ... parts court's dissenting separate of the record relied judgment opinion and on this states in independent on," issue n. 2: theory can be r e v e r s a l of justified. "However, that the I a r c h i t e c t u r e c o n t r a c t were i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o the o r a l only to respond to J u s t i c e Lyons's extensive The offer terms the the of the contract argument in his s p e c i a l w r i t i n g r e g a r d i n g whether the a r b i t r a t i o n p r o v i s i o n i n the a r c h i t e c t u r e c o n t r a c t a p p l i e s to the d i s p u t e i n q u e s t i o n . " So. 3d theory" of the not at . Of course, are 375, "separate and independent c a n n o t a f f o r d a b a s i s on w h i c h t o r e v e r s e trial court without reverse a d i s r e g a r d i n g our judgment on appellant's principal brief. 473 this ( A l a . 1994) waived."). 380 See Payne[, the First 876 So. Options clause well-settled ("In 2d [of argued j u d g m e n t on a g r o u n d n o t this we i n the made Inc. Court do not v. was 9 2d 470, 934 brief So. & Imports, by simply r a i s e d on a p p e a l . " the appellant's Kaplan, reverse will in So. Mark Dodge, I n c . , (Ala. 2003)], Chicago, that not [Capitol Chevrolet 1106 issue, rule not judgment r u l e t h a t we P a r d u e v . P o t t e r , 632 a l s o S m i t h v. ( A l a . 2006) v.] (1995),] ("Issues arguments the a not 2d Inc. addressing 514 U.S. following 938 the trial court's (emphasis added)). 1071132 SHAW, J u s t i c e (dissenting). Beaufort ("BES"), appeals arbitration Cattle this Engineering of from the Services, the denial claims of & Fair Association, declaratory-judgment below, I respectfully Inc., the Inc. of its BES, motion to compel Baldwin County plaintiff, ("the action. dissent d/b/a Fair Association"), For from Inc. the the reasons Court's in expressed no-opinion affirmance. Facts On O c t o b e r 10, and 2 0 0 5 , BES into a written contract BES Procedural ("the agreed to r e n d e r s e r v i c e s design, and facility construction located construction building, contract and in of and the a in connection with improvements Robertsdale, stable ("the stated: "civil design and layout of project on entered architecture contract") at i n which the a which project"). "[C]ivil design handled under a separate c o n t r a c t . " structures Fair Association planning, fairground included of a stadium, a c i v i c - c e n t e r b u i l d i n g , a further the History the survey" site, refers site, The to utilities, 10 and and record work including The the in the restroom architecture survey to indicates the that design placement landscaping, be of as w e l l and the as 1071132 the design of the drainage system w o r k h a d t o be s t a r t e d b e f o r e could be initiated. civil-design estimated, BES and i t was contends pursuant hourly the F a i r to be that a n d s u r v e y w o r k was which contract stated, Agreement into an accurately survey contract. oral would be the rules of contract charged work; t h e an Fair no s u c h o r a l c o n t r a c t in fact was also in contained pertinent i n question shall be performed. an a r b i t r a t i o n part: "Any the American claim, a r i s i n g out of or r e l a t e d subject to arbitration." f u r t h e r s p e c i f i e d t h a t a r b i t r a t i o n w o u l d be p e r f o r m e d to the although i t appears undisputed that the or other matter this not Association appears to contend architecture dispute of entered f o r t h e c i v i l - d e s i g n and civil-design provision, could extent and i n the a r c h i t e c t u r e a c t u a l l y ever created, The work nature project the p a r t i e s to which Association the This of the not included that rate control. the construction Because survey and t r a f f i c It pursuant Arbitration Association ("the AAA"). In June addendum other to 2006, the things, the parties architecture that, purportedly contract notwithstanding 11 that any executed provided, provision an among in the 1071132 architecture contract, BES w o u l d be p a i d a "total amount" of $723,634. In J a n u a r y the AAA against Association including the filed a demand f o r a r b i t r a t i o n w i t h the F a i r A s s o c i a t i o n , had Association argued 2 0 0 8 , BES failed to civil-design pay for and a l l e g i n g that a l l the survey that some of BES's the Fair claims project work. a n s w e r e d t h e demand, a s s e r t e d the F a i r work, The Fair a counterclaim, were not subject and to arbitration. Subsequently, s e e k i n g a judgment d e c l a r i n g or c o n t r a c t the the court to provide that there The respective rights and Fair Association's " 2 . BES Association] to provide c i Association] filed was an no o r a l action agreement t h e c i v i l - d e s i g n and s u r v e y work o r , i f c o n c l u d e d t h a t an o r a l c o n t r a c t parties' contract. Association did exist, obligations complaint declaring under stated: claims [that] ... BES a n d [ t h e F a i r e n t e r e d i n t o a separate o r a l agreement v i l d e s i g n and s u r v e y work t o [ t h e F a i r i n c i d e n t a l to the p r o j e c t . " 3 . T h e r e i s no c o n t r a c t f o r t h e a b o v e m e n t i o n e d s e r v i c e s a n d no a g r e e m e n t was e n t e r e d i n t o r e g a r d i n g the alleged separate contract. Notwithstanding, [BES] claims i t i s owed a n h o u r l y rate f o r the alleged contract i n question. "4. [BES] claims that 12 the separate oral that 1071132 a g r e e m e n t s h o u l d be a r b i t r a t e d u n d e r t h e p r o v i s i o n s of the separate p r o j e c t c o n t r a c t d e s p i t e the f a c t that no oral contract e x i s t s and no i n t e r s t a t e c o m m e r c e was i n v o l v e d o r c o n t e m p l a t e d . "5. [The F a i r A s s o c i a t i o n ] r e q u e s t s t h i s C o u r t determine that no contract exists or in the a l t e r n a t i v e , i t s d u t i e s , r i g h t s and o b l i g a t i o n s , i f any, u n d e r the a l l e g e d s e p a r a t e o r a l a g r e e m e n t f o r c i v i l d e s i g n work r e l a t e d to the p r o j e c t . " Additionally, trial court the contract BES 59(e), the stay filed arbitration. R. stay of the claims " r e l a t e d to civil design granting Civ. P., motion a motion pending granted w h a t i t s t y l e d as The the court to order Ala. a trial regarding v a c a t e the Fair Association filed seeking proceedings; limited the the but alleged a motion also filed to compel s t a t e d , to a l t e r , oral amend, a motion to or Rule compel in pertinent "2. That i n c i d e n t a l and ancillary to the [architecture contract], BES and [the Fair A s s o c i a t i o n ] entered i n t o a separate o r a l agreement ( h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o as t h e ' O r a l Contract'), which i s r e f e r r e d to i n Paragraph 1.1.4 of the [ a r c h i t e c t u r e c o n t r a c t ] , under the terms of which BES a g r e e d t o p r o v i d e c i v i l d e s i g n a n d s u r v e y w o r k t o [ t h e F a i r A s s o c i a t i o n ] f o r ... t h e P r o j e c t . "3. That the Oral Contract and the claims arising under i t are i n t i m a t e l y founded in and i n t e r t w i n e d w i t h the [ a r c h i t e c t u r e c o n t r a c t ] i n t h a t t h e s e r v i c e s t o be r e n d e r e d b y BES u n d e r t h e Oral 13 i t work." the motion to s t a y , p u r s u a n t to and the arbitration motion, the in part: 1071132 C o n t r a c t a r e e x c l u s i v e l y d e v o t e d t o t h e same P r o j e c t which i s the subject of the [ a r c h i t e c t u r e contract] and are i n t e r r e l a t e d to those services, being r e n d e r e d b y t h e same p e o p l e , a t t h e same t i m e a n d place, i n connection w i t h t h e same P r o j e c t a n d f o r the benefit o f t h e same o w n e r , as t h o s e being rendered under the [ a r c h i t e c t u r e c o n t r a c t ] . "6. T h a t t h e p a r t i e s e n t e r e d i n t o a n A d d e n d u m t o t h e [ a r c h i t e c t u r e c o n t r a c t ] , ... w h i c h i m p o s e s a c a p o r l i m i t a t i o n on t h e c o m p e n s a t i o n t o b e p a i d t o B E S f o r w o r k d o n e on t h e c o m m u n i t y c i v i c c e n t e r and shelter, o r ' C o l i s e u m , ' i n t h e amount o f Seven Hundred Twenty-Three Thousand, Six Hundred F i f t y - F o u r D o l l a r s ($723,654). "7. T h a t t h e A d d e n d u m was o n l y a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e s e r v i c e s p r o v i d e d by t h e [ a r c h i t e c t u r e c o n t r a c t ] and d i d n o t apply to those p r o v i d e d by the O r a l Contract and t h e s e r v i c e s t o be p r o v i d e d b y t h e O r a l Contract were not l i m i t e d by the cap imposed by t h e Addendum.[ ] 1 "8. T h a t P a r a g r a p h 1.3.5 ( A r b i t r a t i o n ) o f t h e [architecture contract] provides that 'any claim, dispute or other matter i n question a r i s i n g out of o r r e l a t e d t o t h i s A g r e e m e n t s h a l l be s u b j e c t t o arbitration' "9. T h a t t h e c l a i m , d i s p u t e , o r o t h e r m a t t e r i n question under the Oral Contract a r i s e s out o f , i s r e l a t e d t o , a n d , i n f a c t i s a p a r t o f , t h e same Project which i s the subject of the [ a r c h i t e c t u r e contract] and t h a t t h e a r b i t r a t i o n p r o v i s i o n and I t appears from t h i s p o r t i o n of the motion t o compel t h a t BES b e l i e v e d that the F a i r A s s o c i a t i o n claimed that the addendum t o t h e a r c h i t e c t u r e c o n t r a c t a p p l i e d t o t h e f e e s p a i d f o r t h e c i v i l - d e s i g n and s u r v e y work. However, t h e r e c o r d b e f o r e u s d o e s n o t e l a b o r a t e on t h i s i s s u e . 1 14 1071132 other material provisions of the [architecture contract] apply to the Oral Contract, and a r e incorporated therein by reference, with the exception of the compensation p r o v i s i o n s thereof. "12. That the claims which are admittedly subject to a r b i t r a t i o n i n the pending proceeding before t h e [ t h e AAA] Proceeding, i n c l u d i n g those raised by Counterclaim filed by [the Fair A s s o c i a t i o n ] , i n v o l v e c h a r g e s and c r e d i t s f o r work d o n e b y BES on t h e P r o j e c t a n d a r e s o i n e x t r i c a b l y intertwined with and r e l a t e d t o t h e c l a i m s f o r s u r v e y i n g a n d c i v i l d e s i g n w o r k d o n e b y BES on t h e same P r o j e c t that t h e two c a n n o t p r a c t i c a l l y be resolved in separate proceedings, brought in separate forums." (Emphasis added.) The m o t i o n t o c o m p e l was s u p p o r t e d by c e r t a i n documentary exhibits, as w e l l as t h e a f f i d a v i t president o f BES. Bolton on behalf contract of BES and e n t e r e d he testified, had into of W i l l i a m both W. among o t h e r executed the o r a l c o n t r a c t . the He Bolton, things, that architecture stated: "The r e a s o n t h a t t h e [ a r c h i t e c t u r e contract] e x c l u d e d c i v i l d e s i g n a n d s u r v e y w o r k was t h a t a t t h e t i m e we e x e c u t e d t h e [ a r c h i t e c t u r e c o n t r a c t ] , t h e n a t u r e a n d e x t e n t o f t h o s e s e r v i c e s was u n k n o w n and c o u l d n o t be e s t i m a t e d . U l t i m a t e l y , we r e a c h e d an a g r e e m e n t w i t h [the F a i r A s s o c i a t i o n ] that the c i v i l d e s i g n a n d s u r v e y w o r k w o u l d be d o n e b y BES on a time and m a t e r i a l b a s i s a t our c u s t o m a r y hourly rates. At that time, we entered i n t o an o r a l a g r e e m e n t w i t h [ t h e F a i r A s s o c i a t i o n ] t h a t we w o u l d do t h a t w o r k a t o u r c u s t o m a r y h o u r l y rates, but 15 the 1071132 o t h e r w i s e t h e terms o f t h a t o r a l agreement were t h e same a s t h o s e o f t h e [ a r c h i t e c t u r e c o n t r a c t ] . In f a c t , t h e a n t i c i p a t e d o r a l a g r e e m e n t was r e f e r e n c e d i n P a r a g r a p h 1.1.4 o f t h e [ a r c h i t e c t u r e c o n t r a c t ] . "The c i v i l d e s i g n a n d s u r v e y w o r k was a b s o l u t e l y related t o and a p a r t o f t h e a r c h i t e c t u r a l and engineering s e r v i c e s r e n d e r e d f o r t h e P r o j e c t . The P r o j e c t c o u l d n o t be b u i l t w i t h o u t t h e s u r v e y i n g a n d c i v i l d e s i g n w o r k b e i n g f i r s t d o n e . ... " (Emphasis added.) Additionally, Bolton's affidavit set forth t e s t i m o n y d e t a i l i n g c e r t a i n p u r c h a s e s made i n c o n n e c t i o n the project The compel that Fair he s a y s w e r e made i n i n t e r s t a t e Association arbitration. whether affected filed In i t , the F a i r BES had demonstrated interstate Association a response that commerce. commerce. to the motion to Association the alleged oral Additionally, challenged contract the contended: "9. BES a l s o now c l a i m s the separate oral c o n t r a c t was i n t i m a t e l y f o u n d e d i n a n d i n t e r t w i n e d w i t h t h e [ a r c h i t e c t u r e ] c o n t r a c t a s i t was r e n d e r e d b y t h e same p e o p l e , a t t h e same t i m e a n d p l a c e a n d i n t e r r e l a t e d to the services provided b y B E S ... e s s e n t i a l l y t h a t B E S was a n i n d i s p e n s a b l e party. "10. This argument i s f l a w e d i n that, upon i n f o r m a t i o n and b e l i e f , a G u l f Shores a r c h i t e c t u r e firm a c t u a l l y provided the i n i t i a l s e t of plans f o r the civil design. The name o f t h e f i r m i n G u l f Shores i s n o t known a t t h i s time to the [Fair Association]. "11. Therefore, i t i s impossible 16 with f o r BES t o Fair 1071132 c l a i m t h a t i t s s e r v i c e s were i n d i s p e n s a b l e or so i n t e r t w i n e d as t o be a p a r t o f t h e i n i t i a l w r i t t e n a g r e e m e n t when i n f a c t , i t d i d n o t do t h e initial work. "12. A d d i t i o n a l l y , n o t h i n g p r e v e n t e d the A s s o c i a t i o n ] f r o m h i r i n g an o u t s i d e f i r m t o do design." No evidentiary assertions found After BES its i n the a hearing, styled motion exhibits as a were Fair the motion to compel court alter, to compel a r b i t r a t i o n . motion in support Association's trial to filed BES [Fair civil of the response. denied both amend, or appeals from the the vacate motion and the denial of arbitration. Discussion On So. appeal, 2d 441, c o m p e l i s as 446 our review (Ala. i s de 1999). novo. Ex parte BES's b u r d e n on Roberson, 749 i t s motion to follows: "The party seeking t o c o m p e l a r b i t r a t i o n has the burden of proving the existence of a contract calling for arbitration and proving that that contract evidences a transaction affecting interstate commerce. ' [ A ] f t e r a motion to compel a r b i t r a t i o n h a s b e e n made a n d s u p p o r t e d , t h e b u r d e n i s on t h e n o n - m o v a n t t o p r e s e n t e v i d e n c e t h a t the supposed a r b i t r a t i o n agreement i s not v a l i d or does not apply to the d i s p u t e i n q u e s t i o n . ' " Fleetwood 2000) Enters., (citation Inc. and v. Bruno, emphasis 17 784 So. omitted) 2d 277, (quoting 280 (Ala. Jim Burke 1071132 Auto., Inc. (opinion I v. on Beavers, 674 So. application for believe that s e t f o r t h above. existence of BES's BES, a 2d 1260, n.1 (Ala. meets the motion to compel contract affidavit, calling for to provision not the " d [ i d ] not believe that the apply proved proved t h a t the " c o n t r a c t Fair Association to to the show t h a t dispute Fair Association met burden "the arbitration"--the a t r a n s a c t i o n a f f e c t i n g i n t e r s t a t e commerce." shifted 1995) rehearing)). through Bolton's architecture contract--and 1265 The evidences burden thus the a r b i t r a t i o n in question." i t s burden I in do that regard. BES no a r g u e s on challenge to both p a r t i e s are under appeal that the validity (BES's brief, only issue raised by Oral Contract [the Association] is contract]." (BES's b r i e f , as at 18.) architecture Fair at 18 the within a BES the disputes that "[t]he i s whether the and [the of scope the [architecture thus states dispute is contract-¬ i n t o b e t w e e n BES within 18.) f o l l o w s : "Whether contends Association] contained there a r b i t r a t i o n of BES covered provision appeal the subsequently entered arbitration on of p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the i t . Fair i t i s undisputed that the involving an issue oral 1071132 agreement which existence of containing a broad Our an arises which is out of, is referenced arbitration related in a clause, is to, written and agreement arbitrable." caselaw r e q u i r e s t h i s Court to i n t e r p r e t the arbitration provision the scope of broadly: " ' I n i n t e r p r e t i n g an arbitration provision, "any doubts concerning the scope of a r b i t r a b l e issues s h o u l d be r e s o l v e d i n f a v o r o f a r b i t r a t i o n , w h e t h e r the p r o b l e m at hand i s the c o n s t r u c t i o n of the c o n t r a c t l a n g u a g e i t s e l f o r an a l l e g a t i o n o f w a i v e r , delay, or a l i k e defense to a r b i t r a b i l i t y . " ' The D u n e s o f GP, L . L . C . v . B r a d f o r d , 966 So. 2d 924, 927 (Ala. 2 0 0 7 ) ( q u o t i n g M o s e s H. C o n e Mem'l H o s p . v . M e r c u r y C o n s t r . C o r p . , 460 U.S. 1, 2 4 - 2 5 , 103 S. C t . 927, 74 L. E d . 2d 765 (1983)) (emphasis o m i t t e d ) . I n d e e d , '"a m o t i o n t o c o m p e l a r b i t r a t i o n s h o u l d n o t be denied 'unless i t may be said with p o s i t i v e assurance that the arbitration clause is not s u s c e p t i b l e o f an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n t h a t c o v e r s the a s s e r t e d d i s p u t e . ' " ' I d . ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e C o l q u i t t , 808 So. 2 d 1 0 1 8 , 1024 (Ala. 2001), quoting i n t u r n United Steelworkers o f A m e r i c a v. W a r r i o r & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574 , 5 8 2 - 8 3 , 80 S. Ct. 1347, 4 L. E d . 2d 1409 (1960)) (emphasis o m i t t e d ) . 'While, "as w i t h a n y o t h e r c o n t r a c t , t h e parties' intentions control, ... those intentions are generously construed as to issues of a r b i t r a b i l i t y . " ' C a r r o l l v . W.L. Petrey Wholesale Co., 941 So. 2d 234, 237 ( A l a . 200 6) (quoting M i t s u b i s h i M o t o r s C o r p . v. S o l e r Chrysler-Plymouth, I n c . , 473 U.S. 614, 626, 105 S. C t . 3 3 4 6 , 87 L. E d . 2 d 444 (1985))." Kenworth of 534, (Ala. 545 Mobile, Inc. v. Dolphin 2008). 19 Line, Inc., 988 So. 2d 1071132 As BES agreement notes, by arbitration to' v. Wright, contain the architecture the dispute Fair "arising "The t e r m application." indicates that the out of work work that work c o n t r a c t was was contemplated performed until completed. the This and work survey undertaking by project. Thus, performance, this must work, necessarily the scope arbitration of a r b i t r a t i o n , and 20 and d i d not time Given supra, that survey the required of be was civil-design part of the contract--the o u t o f " o r be doubts should and none work agreement that the could contract that any agreement Kenworth, the architecture and the a r c h i t e c t u r e c o n t r a c t . o f an at and "arise to" undisputed that the c i v i l - d e s i g n demonstrates the The contract f o r the p r o j e c t , in of America and s u r v e y work b e c a u s e unknown necessary described I n s . Co. architecture civil-design a to relating ( A l a . 2004). was submit ' a r i s i n g out of or Unum L i f e or the a r c h i t e c t u r e evidence is of to an t o " the executed, necessary evidences related the terms of the c i v i l - d e s i g n architecture favor contract Association 897 S o . 2 d 1 0 5 9 , 1 0 8 6 extent survey and contract. has a b r o a d testimony the BES any architecture the be for i t s "related concerning resolved I would hold that in the 1071132 dispute related case a r i s e s and, to the c i v i l - d e s i g n out of or i s r e l a t e d therefore, should Additionally, arbitration deemed and because agree on into According contract, in a separate that " [ i ] t i s reasonable underlying reference to [architecture I n d e e d , BES s t a t e s compel: " i n their [architecture be later, made "[T]he provisions this contract]." point arbitration (BES's provision 21 was brief, at that contract] to a the same t h e same t e r m s brief, a t 25.) 9 of the motion to and contract] "later t o assume involving i n paragraph of the [architecture f o rthe That (BES's t r a n s a c t i o n , would otherwise include their civil-design contract. agreement agreement Oral Bolton's the p a r t i e s would oral second s h o u l d be i t was n e c e s s a r y by parties' "[t]he to of the BES t h u s a r g u e s 25.) that the subsequent and e x t e n t to provide that services done appeal 24.) contract n o t be e s t i m a t e d a t t h e t i m e t h e p a r t i e s contract those subsequently as the nature the architecture architecture at i n this arbitration. on reference brief, s u r v e y work c o u l d executed the by (BES's affidavit, argues to of the [architecture contract] incorporated Contract." work to the architecture be s u b m i t t e d BES provision and s u r v e y other apply material to the Oral 1071132 Contract, and a r e i n c o r p o r a t e d supported entered by Bolton's agreement contract]. referenced In dispute related the were In " to This the argument i s effect that "we ... t h a t we w o u l d do t h a t work r a t e s , b u t o t h e r w i s e the terms of t h a t t h e same fact, of the anticipated the as t h o s e oral [architecture agreement was i n P a r a g r a p h 1.1.4 o f t h e [ a r c h i t e c t u r e c o n t r a c t ] . " sum, BES argued regarding i n i t s motion the o r a l t o , the a r c h i t e c t u r e architecture a part testimony, i n t o an o r a l a g r e e m e n t at our customary hourly oral therein contract of, the o r a l contract compel that the out of, or arose contract, apply to was and t h a t t o , and were the terms of incorporated as contract: "9. T h a t t h e c l a i m , d i s p u t e , o r o t h e r m a t t e r i n q u e s t i o n under the Oral Contract a r i s e s out o f , i s r e l a t e d t o , a n d , i n f a c t i s a p a r t o f , t h e same Project which i s the subject of the [ a r c h i t e c t u r e contract] and t h a t t h e a r b i t r a t i o n p r o v i s i o n and other material provisions of the [architecture contract] apply to the Oral Contract, and a r e incorporated therein by reference, with the exception of the compensation p r o v i s i o n s thereof." This argument that the dispute is the i s repeated on a p p e a l , where BES contends (1) i n v o l v i n g t h e o r a l agreement " a r i s e s out o f , r e l a t e d t o , and the existence architecture contract, of which BES's b r i e f , 22 i s referenced i n " a t 4, (2) t h a t "[t]he 1071132 a r b i t r a t i o n p r o v i s i o n of the [architecture contract] deemed incorporated by Contract," BES's reasonable t o assume [architecture later, brief, at that contract] involving otherwise reference the include the s u p p o r t e d and e x p l a i n e d he t e s t i f i e d to that the project oral and (3) same same a second agreement a t 25. as " [ i ] t i s reference underlying terms that to i n their be transaction, their Finally, Oral made would [architecture these assertions are by B o l t o n ' s u n d i s p u t e d e v i d e n c e , where t h e c i v i l - d e s i g n a n d s u r v e y w o r k was r e l a t e d and s t a t e s agreement were contract]." 24, the subsequent the p a r t i e s ' to c o n t r a c t ] , " BES's b r i e f , into s h o u l d be explicitly t h e same that as t h o s e " t h e terms of the of that [architecture 2 Justice Lyons i m p l i e s that, i n pointing to Bolton's t e s t i m o n y t h a t t h e terms o f t h e a l l e g e d o r a l agreement were the same as t h o s e of the a r c h i t e c t u r e contract, which testimony i s not e x p l i c i t l y cited i n BES's brief, I " c o m p l e t e l y i g n o r e " R u l e 2 8 , A l a . R. A p p . P., r e q u i r i n g a n appellant to cite authority and e v i d e n c e supporting i t s arguments. However, I o f f e r t h e s e p a r a t e and i n d e p e n d e n t theory that the terms of the a r c h i t e c t u r e contract were incorporated i n t o the o r a l contract only to respond to J u s t i c e Lyons's extensive argument i n h i s s p e c i a l w r i t i n g regarding whether the a r b i t r a t i o n p r o v i s i o n i n the a r c h i t e c t u r e c o n t r a c t applies to the dispute i n question. J u s t i c e Lyons's argument was n o t r e l i e d u p o n b y t h e F a i r A s s o c i a t i o n - - a n d none o f h i s authorities were c i t e d - - e i t h e r i n t h e t r i a l court o r on a p p e a l , e v e n t h o u g h i t was t h e F a i r A s s o c i a t i o n ' s b u r d e n i n the trial court t o show t h a t the a r b i t r a t i o n p r o v i s i o n 2 23 1071132 Because dispute the in this architecture and I "with of dispute" in this phrase, and 2d proffered out which contains "arising an of and an case. BES of I must any Kenworth, at 1086. by out or is 3 988 Therefore, d i d not apply I may 2d So. the that covers at the terms, "broad[ly] to" is the "not asserted construe[]" have 954, I would hold to the clause, "same" the the to arbitration "generously doubts that related relating i n t e r p r e t a t i o n that resolve arbitration." So. arose indicates p o s i t i v e assurance" phrase susceptible 897 evidence oral contract further contained say appli[ed]" case contract, t h a t any cannot undisputed dispute "in this favor Unum L i f e t h a t the in this of Ins., dispute case. This C o u r t may affirm a trial court's judgment for r e a s o n s r a i s e d f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e on a p p e a l , a n d J u s t i c e L y o n s i s f r e e to i d e n t i f y such reasons i n t h i s case. In f a c t , I agree w i t h the g e n e r a l p r i n c i p l e e x p r e s s e d i n the caselaw from t h e s e c o n d c i r c u i t he h a s c i t e d i n d i c a t i n g t h a t p a r t i e s t o multiple contracts should n o t be r e q u i r e d to a r b i t r a t e a d i s p u t e u n d e r one c o n t r a c t simply because another contract between the p a r t i e s c o n t a i n s a b r o a d a r b i t r a t i o n p r o v i s i o n . However, I p o i n t out B o l t o n ' s t e s t i m o n y to demonstrate t h a t BES c o u l d show e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d t o r e s p o n d t o t h e s e new a r g u m e n t s , w h i c h i t has n o t had t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o do. T h e F a i r A s s o c i a t i o n a l s o a r g u e s on a p p e a l t h a t BES failed to demonstrate that the oral contract affected i n t e r s t a t e commerce. BES, however, argues t h a t the dispute should be a r b i t r a t e d under the terms of the architecture contract. I t i s c l e a r from Bolton's affidavit that the p r o j e c t i n c l u d e d the p u r c h a s e of components, equipment, and 3 24 1071132 is and w i t h i n the scope of the a r b i t r a t i o n further hold motion that the t r i a l court provision i n this erred i n denying case BES's to compel. a p p l i a n c e s from o u t - o f - s t a t e vendors. In the context of the F e d e r a l A r b i t r a t i o n A c t , t h e Supreme C o u r t has h e l d t h a t t h e t e r m " a f f e c t i n g commerce" s i g n a l s " t h e b r o a d e s t p e r m i s s i b l e e x e r c i s e o f C o n g r e s s ' Commerce C l a u s e p o w e r " a n d t h a t " t h e Commerce C l a u s e g i v e s C o n g r e s s t h e p o w e r t o r e g u l a t e local business establishments purchasing s u b s t a n t i a l q u a n t i t i e s of g o o d s t h a t h a v e moved i n i n t e r s t a t e commerce." C i t i z e n s Bank v . A l a f a b c o , I n c . , 539 U.S. 5 2 , 5 6 - 5 7 (2003). 25

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.