 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Pearson v. Adair Homes7/19/2005
Adair Homes, Inc. appeals from a trial court ruling denying its motion to compel arbitration under a construction contract entered with Daniel and Tammy Pearson. We affirm.
FACTS
The Pearsons executed an agreement with Adair to construct a home for them. The Pearsons obtained a construction warranty. The construction contract contained a dispute resolution clause, which provided: The Owner and Adair realize that disagreements may arise in the course of contracting for the construction of a structure which the Parties may be unable to settle between themselves. If this happens, the Parties agree to settle all disagreements in an efficient, timely and fair manner at minimal or no cost. To accomplish this, the parties agree to the following system of Dispute Resolution, which shall apply to all disagreements arising at any time and in any way relating to construction or to this Contract:
. . . {T}he Parties agree to meet with an unbiased Mediator, with a working knowledge of residential construction . . . If mediation fails to resolve the dispute, it will immediately proceed to final and binding arbitration with the Mediator serving as Arbitrator. . . .
Such arbitration shall be final and binding on the Parties on all matters involving, relating to or arising out of this Contract, or the construction of the structure, including Adair's common law and/or statutory lien rights. Resort to this system of mediation/arbitration is mandatory and time is of the essence. The Parties shall equally share the Mediator/Arbitrator's fees.
Clerk's Papers (CP) at 17. The arbitration agreement also specified that Construction Arbitration Services would resolve disputes.
After construction was completed, the Pearsons discovered that water penetrating through improperly sealed windows allowed mold growth that caused their infant son to develop respiratory problems. The Pearsons sought $6,239.78 under warranty for repairs and attorney fees from Adair. Adair denied the Pearsons' warranty claim, asserting that the Pearsons failed to properly seal their home or maintain the existing seal.
The Pearsons sued Adair in superior court, claiming breach of contract, breach of implied warranty of habitability, and personal injury . Adair moved to compel arbitration. The Pearsons disputed that the arbitration clause covered their claims.
After a hearing, the trial court declined to compel arbitration stating:
No fair reading of the language subjects plaintiffs' claims of personal injury to arbitration. The agreement identifies that the arbitrator will have a working knowledge of residential construction. It is unreasonable to suggest that this person also have a 'working knowledge' of a personal injury claim. This type of claim is beyond the scope of a construction contract arbitration agreement.
CP at 69. Adair appeals.
ANALYSIS
Arbitration Clause
Adair first contends that the arbitration clause plainly and unambiguously covers all claims the Pearsons brought against Adair, including their personal injury claim. We disagree.
We review questions of arbitrability de novo. Mendez v. Palm Harbor Homes, Inc., 111 Wn. App. 446, 453, 45 P.3d 594 (2002). The Pearsons bear the burden of showing that the clause does not cover their claims. Mendez, 111 Wn. App. at 453; RCW 7.04.010.
We give the contract language its ordinary meaning. Fancher Cattle Co. v. Cascade Packing, Inc., 26 Wn. App. 407, 613 P.2d 178 (1980). We construe contracts to reflect the parties' intent, and we do not make another or different contract under the guise of construc
Page 1 2 3 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|