The United States Supreme Court recently resolved a circuit split regarding when a party has waived its contractual right to arbitrate by participating in litigation prior to seeking to arbitrate a dispute. In Morgan v. Sundance, Inc., the Court held that the party seeking to resist arbitration does not need to show that it has been prejudiced by the other party’s delay in seeking to compel arbitration. Notably, and in holding that “the Eighth Circuit erred in conditioning a waiver of the right to arbitrate on a showing of prejudice,” the Supreme Court decided against the use of “custom-made rules, to tilt the playing field in favor of (or against) arbitration.”
U.S. arbitration law
Florida’s High Court Clarifies that Incorporating AAA Rules into an Arbitration Provision Delegates Arbitrability to Arbitrator
By Jared M. DuBosar on
When a litigant seeks to compel arbitration pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), there are two issues that must be resolved: (1) whether there is an agreement to arbitrate; and, if so, (2) whether the dispute at issue falls within the scope of the arbitration agreement. The Florida Supreme Court’s recent decision in Airbnb, Inc. v. Doe, deals with who decides this second issue—the court or an arbitrator.
In Airbnb, a couple sued Airbnb and Wayne Natt (the property owner) for issues arising out of their stay at Natt’s condominium, which was listed for rent on Airbnb’s website. Airbnb moved to compel arbitration, arguing that the couple was required to arbitrate their claims because Airbnb’s Terms of Service included an arbitration provision that integrated the AAA Rules. All parties agreed that the couple was bound by the arbitration agreement—the issue then became whether the court or the arbitrator should decide if the couple’s claims against Airbnb were arbitrable.
Tenth Circuit Finds FAA Defenses Applicable to Nondomestic Arbitral Awards
By Shiloh Rainwater on
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit recently held for the first time that parties opposing confirmation of nondomestic arbitral awards (i.e., awards issued in disputes involving property located or conduct occurring outside the U.S.) issued in the U.S. or under U.S. arbitration law are not limited to the grounds set forth in the Inter-American Convention on International Commercial Arbitration (the Panama Convention). Instead, the court ruled that defenses to confirmation under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) apply.