 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Dennis v. CMH Manufacturing11/2/2000
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART.
PICKETT, Judge.
This case is on remand from the Louisiana Supreme Court for briefing, argument, and opinion. The trial court denied a dilatory exception brought by the Defendants on grounds of prematurity. Defendants sought supervisory writs. We granted the writ on original hearing. Plaintiffs applied for a rehearing before this court. On rehearing, we denied the writ based on the showing made. The defendant sought supervisory writs from the Supreme Court. The writ was granted and the matter remanded to us for briefing, argument, opinion.
Facts
The Dennises bought a mobile home from the Defendant on November 7, 1997. They allege that on September 3, 1998 a service technician came to their house after they found the air conditioner register in the kitchen to be rusted and found water standing in the duct work. The Plaintiffs allege that in spite of numerous efforts to repair the problems the air conditioner continued to leak. Mold and algae grew in the ductwork and the insulation was damages. Further, the Dennises allege that they and their children began to experience respiratory health problems as a result of the air conditioner's defects. Consequently, they filed suit alleging redhibitory defects which entitle them to recission of the sale. Additionally, they allege that as a result of the redhibitory defects, they have suffered mental anguish, and emotional distress as well as physical injuries. The defendants brought an exception of prematurity alleging that the Plaintiffs agreed to submit to arbitration "any and all claims for liability, damages or expenses arising out of or in connection with the home, the contract or any warranties." The trial court found the Dennises never envisioned giving up their right to pursue product liability and/or personal injury claims when they signed the retail closing agreement which contained the arbitration clause. The court further found it contrary to public policy to force Plaintiffs to submit their personal injury claims to arbitration. The trial judge ruled that the personal injury and product liability claim were not subject to the arbitration clause when he denied the exception of prematurity. He found all other claims subject to binding arbitration as agreed to by the contract. CMH sought writs to this court arguing that the trial court erred in denying the requested stay and denying the exception of prematurity as to the Plaintiffs' products liability claims and as to their own defamation claims against the Plaintiffs. We now revisit the issue on remand from the supreme court.
Discussion
The defendants set forth two assignments of error. In their first assignment of error they argue the District Court erred in retaining jurisdiction over the products liability claim of the Dennises against the Clayton defendants and the defamation claim of the Clayton defendants against the Plaintiffs because:
(A) the Dennises and the Clayton defendants had executed an arbitration agreement requiring the submission of "any and all claims" by any of the parties to arbitration, (B) the Dennises voluntarily instituted the arbitration and answered the reconventional demand without objecting to the jurisdiction of the arbitrator to dispose of either the Dennises products liability claim or the Clayton Defendants' defamation claim, and (C) the rules of the entity with which the Dennises instituted the arbitration clearly provide that any issue regarding the scope or validity of the arbitration agreement shall be resolved by the arbitrator, not the District Court.
La. R.S. 9:4201 sets forth as follows:
A provision in any written cont
Page 1 2 3 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|