 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Northwest Chrysler-Plymouth6/21/2005
Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED.
Gaertner, Sr., P.J., and Shaw, J., concur.
Opinion:
Introduction
DaimlerChrysler Corporation (DCC) and DaimlerChrysler Motors Company, L.L.C., (DCMC) (collectively Appellants) appeal from a trial court order denying their Petition to Stay and Compel Arbitration (Motion to Compel Arbitration) of the tort claims brought against them by Northwest Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., d/b/a Don Schunk Chrysler Jeep (Respondent). We affirm.
Factual and Procedural Background
Respondent filed a Petition against Appellants alleging products liability and negligence, or in the alternative, res ipsa loquitur . In its Petition, Respondent alleged that it had purchased a PT Cruiser from DCMC and that while in Respondent's showroom, the PT Cruiser caught fire due to a defect in the manufacturing and/or design of the car's engine and/or electrical system, resulting in damage to the showroom and offices as well as several other cars in the showroom.
Subsequently, Appellants filed their Motion to Compel Arbitration, under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. section 1 et seq ., to which Respondent filed a Memorandum in Opposition. In their Motion to Compel Arbitration, Appellants alleged that the PT Cruiser had been purchased pursuant to a Sales and Service Agreement (the Agreement) entered into between Respondent and DCMC. The Agreement included the following Arbitration Provision in relevant part:
Any and all disputes arising out of or in connection with the interpretation, performance or nonperformance of this Agreement or any and all disputes arising out of or in connection with transactions in any way related to this Agreement (including, but not limited to, the validity, scope and enforceability of this arbitration provision, or disputes under rights granted pursuant to the statutes of the state in which DEALER is licensed) shall be finally and completely resolved by arbitration pursuant to the arbitration laws of the United States of America as codified in Title 9 of the United States Code, Sections 1-14, under the Rules of Commercial Arbitration of the American Arbitration Association....
It is the intent and desire of DEALER and [DCMC] to hereby and forever renounce and reject any and all recourse to litigation before any judicial or administrative forum and to accept the award of the arbitration panel as final and binding, subject to no judicial or administrative review, except on those grounds set forth in 9 U.S.C. section 10 and 11.
The trial court entered an order denying Appellants' Motion to Compel Arbitration. The court found that Respondent's tort claims based on theories of products liability, negligence and res ipsa loquitur are beyond the scope of the Arbitration Provision because the claims would have arisen regardless of the Agreement. The trial court noted that had Respondent purchased the PT Cruiser at issue from another dealer or had the car been present pursuant to a loan, Respondent still would have the tort claims against Appellants. The trial court also found Respondent's tort claims beyond the scope of the Arbitration Provision because the resolution of the claims would not require a reference to or construction of a portion of the Agreement. Appellants appeal from the trial court order denying their Motion to Compel Arbitration.
Standard of Review
An order denying a motion to compel arbitration is appealable under Section 435.440.1(1) RSMo 2000 and under 9 U.S.C. section 16(a)(1)(B)(1996). Greenwood v. Sherfield , 895 S.W.2d 169, 172 (Mo. App. S.D. 1995). Whether a dispute is covered by an arbitration provision is a q
Page 1 2 3 Missouri Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|