Custom Performance, Inc. v. Horace Dawson, individually and as administrator of the estate of Tammie Dawson, deceased

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL:08/26/2010 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal 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 R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama 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 ((334) 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, 2010 1090017 Custom P e r f o r m a n c e , I n c . v. H o r a c e Dawson, i n d i v i d u a l l y and as a d m i n i s t r a t o r e s t a t e o f Tammie Dawson, d e c e a s e d Appeal from J e f f e r s o n Circuit C o u r t , Bessemer o f the Division (CV-09-749) COBB, C h i e f This Justice. i s an a p p e a l Court, granting compel arbitration affirm i npart, from the order i n part and denying filed reverse b y Custom i npart, of the Jefferson i n part the motion t o Performance, and remand. Circuit Inc. We 1090017 Facts Custom Bessemer, also motorcycles Johnny Performance, has and Johnson, a Inc., service installs a motorcycle-parts dealer department motorcycle the p r e s i d e n t i n which parts. of Custom in i t repairs According to Performance, "the s e r v i c e department at [Custom Performance] uses trained technicians and repairs are made to motorcycles, including [the motorcycle involved i n t h e a c c i d e n t u n d e r l y i n g t h i s c a s e ] u s i n g p a r t s and s u p p l i e s t r a v e l i n g i n t o Alabama from o t h e r s t a t e s , and u t i l i z i n g t o o l s and i n s t r u m e n t s p r o v i d e d t o t h e d e a l e r s h i p from out of s t a t e e n t i t i e s . " On May 27, 2007, Performance two new Performance to i n s t a l l in i t s service installation arbitration Horace Dawson motorcycle purchased tires. from Custom Horace paid Custom the motorcycle t i r e s department. agreement, In Horace on h i s m o t o r c y c l e conjunction signed the with following agreement: "In connection with the undersigned's a c q u i s i t i o n or attempted a c q u i s i t i o n of the below d e s c r i b e d p r o d u c t , by l e a s e , p u r c h a s e o r o t h e r w i s e , t h e u n d e r s i g n e d and [ C u s t o m P e r f o r m a n c e ] s t i p u l a t e and a g r e e , i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e r e s o l u t i o n o f any d i s p u t e a r i s i n g out of or r e l a t i n g to or c o n c e r n i n g a l l o f t h e c o n t r a c t ( s ) and agreements e n t e r e d i n t o by the parties and relationships resulting t h e r e f r o m , as f o l l o w s : The u n d e r s i g n e d a g r e e t h a t a l l d i s p u t e s not b a r r e d by a p p l i c a b l e s t a t u t e s of l i m i t a t i o n s , r e s u l t i n g from or a r i s i n g out of or r e l a t i n g to or c o n c e r n i n g the t r a n s a c t i o n e n t e r e d into (including but not limited t o any matters 2 the 1090017 taking place either before or a f t e r the p a r t i e s entered i n t o t h i s a g r e e m e n t , i n c l u d i n g any prior agreements or n e g o t i a t i o n s between the p a r t i e s ; the terms of this agreement and a l l clauses herein c o n t a i n e d , t h e i r b r e a d t h and s c o p e , and any t e r m o f any a g r e e m e n t c o n t e m p o r a n e o u s l y e n t e r e d i n t o by t h e p a r t i e s ; t h e p a s t , p r e s e n t , and f u t u r e c o n d i t i o n o f the product, the c o n f o r m i t y of the product to any c o n t r a c t d e s c r i p t i o n the r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s , promises, undertakings, warranties or covenants made by [Custom Performance], or o t h e r w i s e or d e a l i n g w i t h t h e p r o d u c t ; ... a n d a l l c l a i m s o r d i s p u t e s as t o a n y b o d y a n d / o r m e c h a n i c a l r e p a i r s now o r h e r e a f t e r made t o t h e p r o d u c t ) s h a l l be s u b m i t t e d t o B I N D I N G A R B I T R A T I O N , p u r s u a n t t o t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f 9 U.S.C. § 1, et seq., and according to the Commercial Dispute Resolution Procedures of the American A r b i t r a t i o n A s s o c i a t i o n ( t h e AAA) then e x i s t i n g i n the County where [Custom P e r f o r m a n c e ] m a i n t a i n s i t s p r i n c i p l e p l a c e of b u s i n e s s .... THE UNDERSIGNED HAVE AGREED TO WAIVE THE U N D E R S I G N E D ( S ) [ s i c ] RIGHT TO A T R I A L BY JUDGE OR J U R Y AND THAT A R B I T R A T I O N S H A L L BE IN L I E U OF ANY C I V I L L I T I G A T I O N IN ANY COURT AND I N L I E U OF ANY T R I A L BY JUDGE OR J U R Y . ... "Description (Capitalization purchased On according in In helmet Horace, on June 2007, 1 rear 65 Horace Performance. h i s w i f e , Tammie, were Interstate the late from Custom 2007, H o r a c e and motorcycle to S E R V I C E WORK." original.) a motorcycle J u l y 1, Horace's of p r o d u c t : in motorcycle Alabama tire riding when, deflated T a m m i e D a w s o n ' s f i r s t name i s s p e l l e d "Tammy" i n t h e initial complaint i n t h i s case, a s w e l l a s i n some o t h e r p l a c e s i n the r e c o r d . The r e c o r d as c u r r e n t l y c o m p o s e d , however, lends itself to the c o n c l u s i o n t h a t the correct s p e l l i n g o f H o r a c e ' s w i f e ' s f i r s t name i s "'Tammie." 1 3 1090017 suddenly lost without warning. control thrown from accident, where t h e m o t o r c y c l e and s e r i o u s l y on J u l y 6, 2 0 0 7 , motorcycle accident. the motorcycle Horace Tammie Tammie had purchased tires not June Jefferson and manufacturer Sullivans, from present 2009, when subject motorcycle Horace Performance tire helmet, on a Crown the motorcycle i n June. purchased distributor complaint helmet. Horace's complaint America, I n c . ,the of motorcycle In t h e c o m p l a i n t , Horace failed i n the on h i s own b e h a l f had a c q u i r e d the helmet to individually 4 the Tammie was w e a r i n g ; a n d the motorcycle." Horace, at the time of the motorcycle filed HongJin Performance suffered i n History of the motorcycle helmet as d e f e n d a n t s . rear Horace were i n Montgomery, Custom Performance o f Tammie's e s t a t e . Inc.,a retail "Custom wearing he After the trauma C o u r t , Bessemer D i v i s i o n , Performance; whom C u s t o m purchased, that 19, Circuit Custom head o r when he p u r c h a s e d as a d m i n i s t r a t o r named was from Procedural On injured. A c c o r d i n g to Horace, accident, was from contends, he a n d Tammie Tammie was t r a n s p o r t e d t o a h o s p i t a l the motorcycle Horace o f t h e m o t o r c y c l e , and b o t h she d i e d helmet As a r e s u l t , properly With and as helmets Horace alleged install regard the to the administrator 1090017 o f Tammie's e s t a t e , a s s e r t e d c l a i m s a g a i n s t C u s t o m under the Alabama Extended M a n u f a c t u r e r ' s L i a b i l i t y as w e l l as c l a i m s and breach of of negligence, warranty. administrator Performance that On the t i r e July 2009, estate, failed stems 31, 2009, f a i l u r e t o warn, to the sale to during Custom claimed installed warn that trial with court regard and and i t had not that installation. Performance granted t o Horace's Custom the t i r e s filed a motion p r e j u d i c e a n d c o m p e l a r b i t r a t i o n . On the arbitration valve Doctrine, t i r e s , Horace, i n d i v i d u a l l y and Tammie's Performance dismiss without 17, respect n e g l i g e n t l y or wantonly Custom replaced of wantonness, With i n s t a l l a t i o n of the motorcycle as Performance the motion personal to September to claims compel against Custom Performance a r i s i n g out o f t h e s a l e and i n s t a l l a t i o n o f the motorcycle compel tires. arbitration of The trial court the remaining denied claims the motion against to Custom Performance, i . e . ,Horace's p e r s o n a l claims w i t h regard t o the motorcycle Tammie's helmet and a l l t h e c l a i m s estate. 5 asserted on b e h a l f of 1090017 On trial in October court's part. 2, 2009, Custom P e r f o r m a n c e order denying Horace d i d not the motion appealed from to compel the arbitration cross-appeal. Standard of Review "We r e v i e w de n o v o t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s g r a n t o r d e n i a l o f 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 . Bowen v . S e c u r i t y P e s t C o n t r o l , I n c . , 879 So. 2 d 1 1 3 9 , 1141 ( A l a . 2003). I n i t i a l l y , the p a r t y s e e k i n g to compel a r b i t r a t i o n has t h e b u r d e n of p r o v i n g t h e e x i s t e n c e o f a c o n t r a c t c a l l i n g f o r a r b i t r a t i o n and p r o v i n g that that contract evidences a transaction involving interstate commerce. Polaris Sales, Inc. v. H e r i t a g e I m p o r t s . , I n c . , 879 So. 2 d 1 1 2 9 , 1132 ( A l a . 2003). The moving party 'must "'produce some evidence which tends to e s t a b l i s h i t s claim.'"' W o l f f M o t o r Co. v . W h i t e , 869 S o . 2 d 1 1 2 9 , 1131 (Ala. 2003) (quoting Jim Burke Auto., Inc. v. B e a v e r s , 674 So. 2 d 1 2 6 0 , 1265 ( A l a . 1 9 9 5 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n I n r e A m e r i c a n F r e i g h t S y s . , I n c . , 164 B.R. 3 4 1 , 345 (D. K a n . 1 9 9 4 ) ) . Once t h e m o v i n g p a r t y h a s properly s u p p o r t e d h i s or her motion to compel a r b i t r a t i o n , the burden t h e n s h i f t s t o the nonmovant to present evidence tending to show that the a r b i t r a t i o n agreement i s i n v a l i d or i n a p p l i c a b l e to t h e c a s e . P o l a r i s S a l e s , 879 So. 2 d a t 1 1 3 2 . " Edwards v. C o s t n e r , 979 So. 2d 757, 761 ( A l a . 2007). Analysis I. Enforceability We note specifically § 8-1-41(3) of the W r i t t e n Arbitration that predispute a r b i t r a t i o n e n f o r c e d under ("The Alabama law. Agreement agreements See A l a . C o d e f o l l o w i n g o b l i g a t i o n s c a n n o t be 6 cannot be 1975, specifically 1090017 enforced: ... arbitration An agreement to submit a controversy to " ) . "However, t h r o u g h t h e combined h o l d i n g s o f s e v e r a l d e c i s i o n s o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t , t h e application of [Alabama's prohibition on t h e specific enforcement of written arbitration c o n t r a c t s ] has been r e l e g a t e d t o t h e r a r e case o f a p u r e l y i n t r a s t a t e t r a n s a c t i o n t h a t c o u l d n o t be s a i d t o ' i n v o l v e c o m m e r c e ' i n a n y way. See S o u t h l a n d C o r p . v . K e a t i n g , 4 65 U.S. 1, 1 6 , 104 S. C t . 852 (19 8 4 ) ; A l l i e d - B r u c e T e r m i n i x C o s . v . D o b s o n , 513 U.S. 2 6 5 , 115 S. C t . 834 ( 1 9 9 5 ) ; a n d C i t i z e n s B a n k v. A l a f a b c o , I n c . , 5 3 9 U.S. 5 2 , 123 S. C t . 2 0 3 7 (2003)." Birmingham overruled News C o . v . H o r n , on o t h e r g r o u n d s , 901 S o . 2 d 2 7 , 44 H e r e f o r d v . D.R. ( A l a . 2004), H o r t o n , I n c . , 13 So. 3 d 375 ( A l a . 2 0 0 9 ) , a n d H o r t o n Homes, I n c . v . S h a n e r , So. 2 d 462 Instead, ("the ( A l a . 2008). FAA"), provides 9 U.S.C. for the the Federal § 1 e t s e q . , preempts specific enforcement Arbitration Act Alabama of "[a] p r o v i s i o n i n ... a c o n t r a c t e v i d e n c i n g a t r a n s a c t i o n commerce." It law and written involving 9 U.S.C. § 2. i s undisputed that arbitration agreement with Performance's Custom Horace's 999 motorcycle. with Horace entered into Custom Performance agreement Horace to i n s t a l l contends, 7 a written i n conjunction new t i r e s however, that on the 1090017 agreement does not e v i d e n c e a t r a n s a c t i o n Therefore, e n f o r c e d by t h e c o u r t s determine whether a intrastate 'involve at commerce. t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e a r b i t r a t i o n a g r e e m e n t may be s p e c i f i c a l l y purely involving the transaction commerce' transaction i n a n y way." of t h i s represents that could s t a t e , we must a "rare case of n o t be said to B i r m i n g h a m News, 901 S o . 2 d 44. "[T]he functional commerce' term equivalent Citizens 273-74 of commerce' t h e more -- w o r d s o f a r t t h a t permissible exercise Bank (quoting 'involving v. of Allied-Bruce (1995)). "transactions (1) that Commerce I n c . , 539 Terminix Congress' familiar FAA term [ i s ] the 'affecting o r d i n a r i l y s i g n a l the broadest Congress' Alafabco, i n the U.S. Clause 52 , power." 56 (2003) C o s . v . D o b s o n , 513 U.S. Commerce use the Clause channels power of 265, reaches interstate commerce, (2) t h a t i n v o l v e t h e i n s t r u m e n t a l i t i e s o f i n t e r s t a t e commerce, or persons or things that involve general interstate 882, reach 885 a o r (3) a c t i v i t i e s h a v i n g a s u b s t a n t i a l e f f e c t on commerce." ( A l a .2006). transaction i n i n t e r s t a t e commerce, McKay B l d g . Co. v . J u l i a n o , "Congress's Commerce C l a u s e even i f the 8 individual 949 S o . 2 d power may transaction at 1090017 issue does commerce i f question aggregate Id. in Crystal which the 'substantial represent quoting find a the control."'" American We have 'in would federal 56-57, not practice Citizens Bank, 219, 539 U.S. at Farms, Inc. v. 236 (1948)). and 9 U.S.C. § 2. dealer motorcycle would using The parts, commerce transaction involving bears d i r e c t l y new tools, -- that economic a c t i v i t y install interstate inherently every evidence a transaction a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n a c u s t o m e r and tires on supplies the an instrumentality on the and of of a e f f i c i e n c y of activity a major channel aggregate, of motorcycle interstate So. 1129, 1132 c o m m e r c e . See n.3 (Ala. 9 tires W o l f f M o t o r Co. 2003) which the i n t e r s t a t e h i g h w a y s ; and, affects through commercial the installation which a motorcycle, commerce; -¬ customer's obtained unquestionably a necessary part safety in question a d e a l e r p u r s u a n t to and is "involv[es] o f i n t e r s t a t e c o m m e r c e -- 2d to a r b i t r a t i o n agreement between Custom Performance to consider subject in in said to activity ... Island U.S. interstate s p e c i f i c way commerce," is 334 i t unnecessary be the general on economic Mandeville Co., H o r a c e can an the (quoting turn Sugar "a effect' in the substantially v. White, ("'Instrumentalities 869 of 1090017 interstate [United -- States retain other commerce e.g., v.] B i s h o p , the inherent objects activity -- of cars, 66 F . 3 d potential regulation. involving an trains, [569,] 588 to affect Thus, even instrumentality airplanes, see [(3d Cir.1995)] commerce, i f a might unlike particular not, through r e p e t i t i o n e l s e w h e r e , s u b s t a n t i a l l y a f f e c t i n t e r s t a t e commerce during t h e moment within [the reach of regulation at some of ("The v. point i n time.'" Ballinger, 'persons or including a l l cars that things' to, F.3d 2000) inter United ("The alia, States; interstate of that Gibbs term across v. highway falls the object because to affect (quoting 12 64 , United 1269 interstate move in ships, state Babbitt, commerce States commerce rivers, aircraft as F.3d interstate system; ... 10 lakes, railroad United are interstate lines, 214 v. ( 1 1 t h C i r . 2002 ) those commerce, and anything do interstate 483, 490-91 ( 4 t h ' c h a n n e l o f i n t e r s t a t e commerce' 'navigable the still ( 6 t h C i r . 1 9 9 6 ) ) ; see a l s o and t r u c k s , travels shipments."); Cir. 312 instrumentalities else activity the unique capacity M c H e n r y , 97 F . 3 d 1 2 5 , 1 2 6 - 2 7 States the o f t h e Commerce C l a u s e ] contains future regulation, and c a n a l s track interstate refers of the system; the telephone and 1090017 telegraph broadcast F.3d lines; traffic frequencies.'" 235, 245 (1998))). Cf. ("This air Court (5th routes; (quoting Cir. 1997 ) , United cert. K a t z e n b a c h v. M c C l u n g has held time and obstruct restaurants, States again radio Miles, 523 U.S. U.S. 294, that this of r e t a i l which d i r e c t l y and v. denied, 379 C l a u s e ] power e x t e n d s to a c t i v i t i e s including television 302 1011 (1964) [Commerce establishments, or i n d i r e c t l y burden the a r b i t r a t i o n agreement between Horace Custom Performance e v i d e n c e s a t r a n s a c t i o n t h a t is within reach and o f C o n g r e s s ' s Commerce Power and specifically enforced in is arbitration undisputed the FAA, to that a g r e e m e n t as p a r t the Helmet Horace of the did and the not that time of the Horace's accident. claims encompassed w i t h i n Scope execute wearing However, Custom P e r f o r m a n c e p e r t a i n i n g to the the be arbitration 11 of an J u n e 2007 t r a n s a c t i o n i n w h i c h he p u r c h a s e d t h e m o t o r c y c l e h e l m e t Tammie was the i t may and Alabama. Horace's Claims R e l a t i n g A r b i t r a t i o n Agreement It or i n t e r s t a t e commerce."). Accordingly, II. the 122 the motorcycle agreement argues helmet Horace at are executed 1090017 i n May on 2007 i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h Horace's A court arbitrability evidence'" that (quoting 938, not the in the to of The agreement McGrue, So. of and in 2d this Cf. 132 Jim (Ala. v. case v. to a s c e r t a i n R a h a i m , 549 the meaning of and parties the clearly The the So. intention terms are of of the presumed 2d of Burke Auto., the parties, contract to have the are 1989) the to clear be intended see agreement also order and plain effect, the provides: "The undersigned agree that a l l disputes ... r e s u l t i n g f r o m or a r i s i n g out of or r e l a t i n g to or c o n c e r n i n g the t r a n s a c t i o n entered into (including 12 the ("In state."). arbitration v. parties' given what the Inc. that 514 such of arbitrability); (Ala. (Ala. Kaplan, 2002 ) ( h o l d i n g 58 , 60 of issue. 892 language the question that contains intent arbitrate issue 890, Inc. unambiguous itself. 122, So. a r b i t r a t i o n agreement s t a t e d Strickland tires unmistakabl[e]" p l a i n l a n g u a g e o f an to the the arbitrate Chicago, record of and 744 Options clear 2d agreed Leggett, C o r p . v. (1995)). arbitration "'"clea[r] parties arbitration 82 6 order upon First 944 evidence may except Commercial Credit U.S. installation motorcycle. trial 1999) the terms 1090017 b u t n o t l i m i t e d t o ... t h e t e r m s o f t h i s a g r e e m e n t and a l l c l a u s e s h e r e i n c o n t a i n e d , t h e i r b r e a d t h a n d scope ...) shall be submitted to BINDING ARBITRATION." (Capitalization It original.) i s undisputed containing that in that the language language plainly Horace quoted Jim Burke, intent supra to claims); (holding arbitrate Ex parte ("The a r b i t r a t i o n to arbitrate the sale to: the a contained, of their 'resulting entered this into breadth and the 550, and submit to added). arbitration Therefore, the t r i a l to arbitrate related III. This the parties or a r i s i n g the of dispute to the helmet over are subject herein and any term a clear of any ... ) ' intent arbitrability Horace's to " ) . parties claims arbitration. of the Claims Asserted 13 out of a l l clauses whether to agree limited expresses issue of but not court erred i n not compelling the their Arbitrability language an ( A l a . 1999) agreement c o n t e m p o r a n e o u s l y e n t e r e d i n t o by t h e p a r t i e s (emphasis Cf. evidenced 553 that from scope, and arbitrability (including agreement Performance language 2d ... s t a t e s terms, of a r b i t r a b i l i t y . over So. agreement i t s clear Custom similar 736 provision any d i s p u t e s terms that dispute to the By the issue that Waites, transaction above. indicates Horace i n t e n d e d to a r b i t r a t e assented By Tammie's Estate 1090017 It is undisputed that arbitration agreement Horace installation matter to of of the submit."'" 1124, and any Central 1127 (Ala. Life 2003) in quoting Co. S t e e l Workers United Gulf Navigation Co., 'a n o n s i g n a t o r y to to arbitrate Ventura, Pest 907 A. So. 2d Inc. However, U.S. 574, arbitration "the Boykin, are upon the can be third party." 890 So. 2d 92, 979 So. 2d 757, 97 763 with the 643, D. to so to So. 869 2d Inc. 648 v. (1986), Warrior & "Generally, Jones forced & Co. (quoting 2d is a submit c a n n o t be 2005) So. to Techs., agreement 8 07 the 524, this v. Cook's 526 (Ala. general rule. Status bound to bestow a d i r e c t , Fox, (1960)). exceptions contracting parties contract, 582 (Ala. v. to agreed of A m e r i c a v. 1035, 1042 v. U.S. Edward there nonsignatory 475 claims.'" Third-Party-Beneficiary A if an [his] Control, 2001)). 363 not AT&T of A m e r i c a , in turn required has Ins. Communications Workers party "'"[A]rbitration he (quoting a conjunction c a n n o t be which Reserve not tires. a party dispute was signed motorcycle contract, arbitration Tammie to an intended, arbitration upon agreement execution as o p p o s e d t o i n c i d e n t a l D u n n i n g v. (Ala. 2003). (Ala. 2007). 14 New See England also Life the benefit Ins. Edwards v. " [ I ] n order of Co., Costner for a person to 1090017 be a third-party beneficiary parties must parties." 1251 into a 2005). contract to Costner, bestow arbitration] establish 1131, a So. at Jim 761 (D. K a n . 1994))). "A a (Ala. forced and Energy 2000). exception to So. to the third 2d 1247, presented i t and Horace no entered on Tammie. Edwards [party evidence moving which Sys., Sys., 869 So. I n c . v. 2d claims Consumer I n c . ) , 164 asserted by So. at B.R. v. for tends W o l f f M o t o r Co., 674 they to 2d 1265, Prods. 341, 345 exception Tammie's estate. Estoppel plaintiff Southern on Thus, the t h i r d - p a r t y - b e n e f i c i a r y applicable contract 910 has Burke Auto., (In re American F r e i g h t Equitable benefits ("The some Assocs. B. contracting a r b i t r a t i o n agreement, (quoting in turn the Educ., benefit "'produce i t s claim.'"'" of time an i n turn American Freight not bestow the quoting is contract, Performance at direct 2d 'must quoting to Custom containing 979 a O z a r k C i t y Bd. indicating that, intended at intended L o c k e v. (Ala. evidence have of cannot repudiate Homes, Thus, the simultaneously Inc. this general to a r b i t r a t e . its v. burdens Ard, Court rule that Regardless 15 claim 772 has a the and So. benefits of conditions." 2d developed nonsignatory 1131, a 1134 second cannot of whether a n o n s i g n a t o r y be is 1090017 in fact a t h i r d - p a r t y b e n e f i c i a r y , the nonsignatory i s treated as a t h i r d - p a r t y b e n e f i c i a r y -- a n d i s e q u i t a b l y e s t o p p e d avoiding arbitration enforce 2d -- when he o r s h e a s s e r t s l e g a l c l a i m s t o r i g h t s o r o b t a i n b e n e f i t s t h a t d e p e n d on t h e e x i s t e n c e of t h e c o n t r a c t e.g., that contains Capitol Chevrolet 285, 289 plaintiff] beneficiary. ... the a r b i t r a t i o n agreement. & Imports, ( A l a . 2000) nonsignatory the ("[T]o must maintain be her treated as 784 S o . claims, a [the third-party [A] t h i r d - p a r t y b e n e f i c i a r y i s a f f o r d e d a l l of a contract, associated (Ala. with 2000). claims on Capitol i n c l u d i n g those b e n e f i t s arbitration. Therefore, the 727 S o . 2 d 42 So. 2d 975 executed 1997)."); 48 1998 ) ; Infiniti ( A l a . 1999) nonsignatory] between a n d a t t h e same (Ala. 1999); (Ala. Stamey, [the nonsignatory] contract Chevrolet, Ex p a r t e a r b i t r a t i o n a g r e e m e n t . See I n f i n i t i 42, I n c . v. Grantham, See, r i g h t s and b e n e f i t s , and has imposed upon h i m o r h e r t h e burdens, (Ala. from Delta time and Ex p a r t e of Mobile, ("Under her seek base her husband and to avoid the I n c .v. O f f i c e , Corp. v. Gooden, Dyess, 714 709 S o . 2 d 447 I n c . v . O f f i c e , 727 S o . 2 d these circumstances, i s i n the p o s i t i o n of basing inducement] and b r e a c h - o f - w a r r a n t y c l a i m s 16 776 S o . 2 d 85 cannot of Mobile, Constr. and burdens [the her fraud[-in-theon t h e c o n t r a c t ... 1090017 while [an at the same t i m e arbitration] cannot do." provision (emphasis H o w e v e r , as Inc. v. 807 Boykin, that the ... in to that avoid the operation contract This of she added)). this extent seeking Court So. explained 2d 524, 526-27 nonsignatory's existence of the provision, the nonsignatory i n Cook's Pest (Ala. claims contract do is not 2001 ) , to the rely on the not containing Control, the estopped arbitration from avoiding arbitration: "'Under t h e f a c t s o f t h i s p r e s e n t case, i t appears [the n o n s i g n a t o r y ] r e l i e s on t h e o r i e s o f recovery that do not depend upon the existence of the c o n t r a c t [ c o n t a i n i n g an a r b i t r a t i o n p r o v i s i o n ] . To the extent that she can prove the prima facie elements of her case against [the defendant s i g n a t o r y ] without r e f e r e n c e to the c o n t r a c t between [the signatories], she is not bound by the a r b i t r a t i o n agreement." (Emphasis added.) estate is burden of the equitably estopped arbitration, circumstances asserted the Accordingly, by contract of we this contains from must Tammie's e s t a t e that to determine whether first case, are the "claims of breach of any of arbitration behalf warranty, 17 the consider contractual whether, under legal claims the d e p e n d e n t on P e r f o r m a n c e a r g u e s t h a t H o r a c e , on asserts avoiding Tammie's the existence of agreement. Custom o f Tammie's estate, failure to warn, and 1090017 negligence subject each i n connection tires," of those with Custom claims t h e s a l e and i n s t a l l a t i o n Performance's i s dependant brief, on that contains the a r b i t r a t i o n however, that Horace, as a d m i n i s t r a t o r the in sale the abstract, willful So. a (Ala. resident required wantonness 1994) against to Pest We 2 forth Martin Control, arbitrate a pest-control also estate, with note that, wanton, o r dependant the elements i n j u r e d by f i r e note, on t h e C h e v r o n Chem. C o . , 720 to warn); (listing C f . Cook's nursing-home not failure We i n connection i s necessarily See Ex p a r t e that of the o f Tammie's nor negligent, ( A l a . 1998) ( s e t t i n g of negligent 2 d 564 of the t i r e s . negligence warn of a contract. negligence). was to 2d 922, 924-25 claim So. neither failure existence agreement. a breach-of-warranty claim and i n s t a l l a t i o n a t 24, and the existence contract does n o t a s s e r t ofthe supra ants claims the elements of v. A r n o l d , of a claim (holding negligence company b e c a u s e of that i n a nursing of 643 a home and the claims We n e e d n o t e v a l u a t e whether the e s t a t e ' s breach-ofwarranty claim i n connection with the motorcycle helmet i s d e p e n d a n t on o r s u b j e c t t o t h e a r b i t r a t i o n a g r e e m e n t i n t h e t i r e - i n s t a l l a t i o n contract. C u s t o m P e r f o r m a n c e m a k e s no s u c h argument. B u t l e r v . Town o f A r g o , 871 S o . 2 d 1, 20 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) ( " ' [ I ] t i s n o t t h e f u n c t i o n o f t h i s C o u r t t o do a p a r t y ' s l e g a l r e s e a r c h o r t o make a n d a d d r e s s l e g a l a r g u m e n t s f o r a party ( q u o t i n g D y k e s v . L a n e T r u c k i n g , I n c . , 652 S o . 2 d 248, 251 ( A l a . 1 9 9 4 ) ) ) . 2 18 1090017 of the nursing-home existence of company and In Court the the service nursing Infiniti, reached on arbitration and between the opposite causes of existence results action of a of the of causes this of action n e c e s s a r i l y r e l y on t h e c o n t r a c t agreement. of any require asserted denial of by Control) . It construct and essential point. unequivocally estate motion to analyzing those any cases both o f why Cf. not the function arguments for the 652 So. 2d i t i s not the Dykes, stated that 19 an cases. the discussion of may have the a r b i t r a t i o n Infiniti (cf. I n f i n i t i ) were a n a l y s i s of Tammie's e s t a t e that contains the containing cites or this of each case, o f f e r any case supra, after contract a r b i t r a t e those is address the pest-control and or to claims of (cf. this 251 Pest claims affirm parties at devoid Cook's t h i s C o u r t to compel a r b i t r a t i o n of the Tammie's the on Custom Performance's argument i s meaningful explanation Control Pest In s h o r t , in Custom Performance circumstances any the Cook's Pest C o n t r o l , However, Custom P e r f o r m a n c e does not whether dependent p a r t i c u l a r circumstances provision. particular not home). supra, specific dependent were contract seemingly whether, under the plaintiffs' resident Cook's Court on the to this ("We have f u n c t i o n of t h i s Court 1090017 ... t o make a n d a d d r e s s undelineated authority 2d 76 general propositions or argument." (Ala. Under hold l e g a l arguments (citing f o r a party not s u p p o r t e d by based on sufficient S p r a d l i n v. S p r a d l i n , 601 S o . 1992))). the circumstances, that Tammie's we estate find i s no b a s i s estopped upon w h i c h t o from avoiding arbitration. C. "Intertwining Custom basis the Claims" Performance that to signatory to an arbitration arbitrate nonarbitrable claims a controversy subject v. Cook's Sharman, Pest 2001)); 2d this agreement "where doctrine, may I n c . v. Boykin, (explaining the a and estopped to Conseco F i n . 2d (citing 524 ( A l a . I n c . , 825 S o . 2 d 9 6 , reasons for limiting t o use by t h e n o n s i g n a t o r y a r b i t r a t i o n of a signatory's 20 So. a the party to ( A l a . 2001) 807 Tony's Towing, compel arbitrable claim." 8 90 , 8 93 of i n t e r t w i n i n g claims compelling Under of the r e l a t e d So. separate to a r b i t r a t e i t s claims i s to a r b i t r a t i o n i s equitably s e e a l s o Ex p a r t e ( A l a . 2002) doctrine 828 Control, claims and a r e so c l o s e l y r e l a t e d t h a t the a r b i t r a b i l i t y Corp. a distinct of i n t e r t w i n i n g claims. nonsignatory 97 argues f o r r e q u i r i n g Tammie's e s t a t e doctrine deny Theory claims). The the in doctrine 1090017 of i n t e r t w i n i n g claims signatory attempts arbitrate claims Costner, supra) 979 this S o . 2 d a t 764 Custom agreement, asserted nonsignatory. a nonsignatory third (citing Ex p a r t e when party a to Edwards v. Tony's Towing, signatory to the arbitration of the added). case, arbitration claims t o compel i t may h a v e a g a i n s t a s i g n a t o r y . " (emphasis In " i s not a p p l i c a b l e , however, by Performance, seeks to Tammie's Under these intertwining claims arbitration. See Ex p a r t e a compel estate, when circumstances, cannot serve as was the doctrine a Tony's Towing, Tammie basis supra, to a of compel and Edwards, supra. Conclusion We reverse court d i d not arbitrability helmet. trial submit We proceedings AFFIRMED court's claims respects, remand order arbitration this we case 21 the question to the affirm this Bolin, trial of the motorcycle the order to the t r i a l of the court f o r opinion. I N PART; AND S t u a r t , Smith, concur. i n s o f a r as t h e related consistent with I N PART; R E V E R S E D Lyons, Woodall, Shaw, J J . , to of Horace's In a l l other court. further the t r i a l REMANDED. Parker, Murdock, and

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.