2021 Colorado Code
Title 13 - Courts and Court Procedure
Article 22 - Age of Competence - Arbitration - Mediation
Part 2 - Uniform Arbitration Act
§ 13-22-206. Validity of Agreement to Arbitrate

1. An agreement contained in a record to submit to arbitration any existing or subsequent controversy arising between the parties to the agreement is valid, enforceable, and irrevocable except on a ground that exists at law or in equity for the revocation of a contract.
2. The court shall decide whether an agreement to arbitrate exists or a controversy is subject to an agreement to arbitrate.
3. An arbitrator shall decide whether a condition precedent to arbitrability has been fulfilled and whether a contract containing a valid agreement to arbitrate is enforceable.
4. If a party to a judicial proceeding challenges the existence of, or claims that a controversy is not subject to, an agreement to arbitrate, the arbitration proceeding may continue pending final resolution of the issue by the court, unless the court otherwise orders.

History. Source: L. 2004: Entire part R&RE, p. 1720, § 1, effective August 4.

This section is similar to former § 13-22-203 as it existed prior to 2004.

Law reviews. For article, “SCOTUS Decision Applies FAA to Empower Businesses and Arbitrators”, see 48 Colo. Law. 30 (Aug.-Sept. 2019).

Annotator's note. Since § 13-22-206 is similar to § 13-22-203 as it existed prior to the 2004 repeal and reenactment of this part 2, relevant cases construing that provision have been included in the annotations to this section.

Colorado's arbitration act encompasses all forms of contract and contract conditions that expressly or impliedly include a duty to arbitrate. Lane v. Urgitus, 145 P.3d 672 (Colo. 2006).

An agreement to arbitrate can take the form of previously executed consents to arbitrate. Where licensed real estate brokers signed membership agreements consenting to arbitration with other members of the professional organization should disputes arise among themselves, and where those brokers were members of the organization at the time they entered into the alleged referral fee agreement that led to the dispute, their previously executed consents to arbitrate constituted an implied condition of the alleged referral fee agreement enforceable under Colorado's arbitration act. Lane v. Urgitus, 145 P.3d 672 (Colo. 2006).

Binding grievance arbitration of public employment agreement disputes. Binding grievance arbitration of disputes arising under the terms of a public employment collective bargaining agreement is not per se unconstitutional as a delegation of legislative authority. City & County of Denver v. Denver Firefighters Local 858, 663 P.2d 1032 (Colo. 1983).

While parties may waive the provision that authorizes a court to determine whether an agreement to arbitrate exists or a controversy exists, the parties must plainly and unambiguously empower an arbiter to decide arbitrability. Johnson-Linzy v. Conifer Care Comtys., 2020 COA 88 , 469 P.3d 537.

Parties may expand an original contract for arbitration by agreeing to submit other matters of dispute to arbitration. Cabus v. Dairyland Ins. Co., 656 P.2d 54 (Colo. App. 1982).

Once a controversy is submitted, it remains before the arbitrator until an award is rendered unless the parties mutually agree to withdraw it. Cabus v. Dairyland Ins. Co., 656 P.2d 54 (Colo. App. 1982).

That an issue was voluntarily submitted or submitted by an agreement expanding the original scope of the arbitrator's jurisdiction does not alter the fact that, once agreed upon, it becomes part of a binding contract to arbitrate. Cabus v. Dairyland Ins. Co., 656 P.2d 54 (Colo. App. 1982).

Parties' agreement for binding Rabbinical arbitration in a legal separation proceeding that was later dismissed remained valid and applicable to the subsequent dissolution of marriage proceeding between the same parties where the agreement stated that the parties would submit any future issues that might arise relating to the marriage to the “Beth Din” and where the agreement contained no qualifying or limiting language indicating that the parties intended to link the agreement to any particular proceeding. In re Popack, 998 P.2d 464 (Colo. App. 2000).

Arbitration of claim that underlying contract induced by fraud. Where a party does not contest the validity of the arbitration clause itself, the statutory exception contained in this section does not preclude arbitration of the claim that underlying contract was induced by fraud. Nat'l Camera, Inc. v. Love, 644 P.2d 94 (Colo. App. 1982).

Former § 13-22-204(1) contemplates that the trial court will have the authority to consider one issue: The existence of the agreement to arbitrate. All other issues, including challenges to the enforceability of the agreement under former § 13-22-203 , implicitly are the province of the arbitrator. Furthermore, the trial court's authority is limited to specific challenges to the agreement to arbitrate, not the broader contract containing the arbitration provision. A fraudulent inducement claim, if it is to be considered by the trial court, must be directed specifically to fraud inducing the plaintiff to agree to arbitrate. Broader allegations of fraudulent inducement must be resolved in arbitration. Ingold v. AIMCO/Bluffs, L.L.C. Apartments, 159 P.3d 116 (Colo. 2007) (decided under law in effect prior to the 2004 repeal and reenactment).

Allegations of fraudulent inducement directed specifically to an arbitration provision in a contract must be decided by a trial court; allegations of fraudulent inducement directed more broadly to the contract as a whole must be decided by the arbitrator. Ingold v. AIMCO/Bluffs, L.L.C. Apartments, 159 P.3d 116 (Colo. 2007) (decided under law in effect prior to the 2004 repeal and reenactment); J.A. Walker Co. v. Cambria Corp., 159 P.3d 126 (Colo. 2007).

Allegation of fraudulent inducement not directed specifically to lease's arbitration provision is an issue to be decided by the arbitrator and not the trial court. Ingold v. AIMCO/Bluffs, L.L.C. Apartments, 159 P.3d 116 (Colo. 2007) (decided under law in effect prior to the 2004 repeal and reenactment).

Despite the expiration of the contract, an arbitration clause survives as to disputes that arise under the contract. Shams v. Howard, 165 P.3d 876 (Colo. App. 2007).

The Uniform Arbitration Act cannot breathe life into an arbitration agreement that the Wage Claim Act deems void. The compensation provisions of an employment contract of a Colorado employee that mandated arbitration of disputes concerning payment of his commission was void as it waived his substantive and procedural rights under the Wage Claim Act. Lambdin v. District Ct. of Arapahoe County, 903 P.2d 1126 (Colo. 1995).

For a discussion of whether certain claims were within the scope of an arbitration clause in an employment agreement, see Austin v. U S West, Inc., 926 P.2d 181 (Colo. App. 1996).

Prior to ordering arbitration, the court was required to determine whether the arbitration clause was enforceable and whether the plaintiff had sufficient mental capacity to enter into the contract. The doctrine of separability applies, and the court must resolve any challenge to an arbitration provision before an arbitrator can decide any challenge to the entire contract. However, there is a difference between questions about the contract's validity and whether any agreement was ever concluded, and a mental capacity defense requires the court to make a determination whether an agreement exists. Therefore, the mental capacity defense is exempt from the separability inquiry under the Colorado Uniform Arbitration Act. Estate of Grimm v. Evans, 251 P.3d 574 (Colo. App. 2010).

Applied in Cabs, Inc. v. Delivery Drivers Local 435, 39 Colo. App. 241, 566 P.2d 1078 (1977).