Arbitration Clauses Frequently Misunderstood, Poorly Drafted
Arbitration continues to serve as a popular forum for resolving construction-related disputes, but unfortunately, clauses compelling arbitration frequently are poorly drafted and misunderstood by the parties involved.
Each state’s laws compelling arbitration are unique and continue to evolve, especially when it comes to compelling arbitration by non-signatories to the arbitration agreement itself. For example, in May 2017, the United States Supreme Court overturned a state-court opinion, ruling that an attorney-in-fact could waive the right to a jury trial on behalf of a decedent even where state law otherwise conveyed to the decedent a “God given right” to a jury trial.
In Kindred Nursing Centers, Limited Partnership v. Clark, the Supreme Court held that the Federal Arbitration Act requires state courts place arbitration agreements “on equal footing with all other contracts.” In so ruling, the Supreme Court overruled the Kentucky Supreme Court’s ruling that to agree to arbitration, “the representative must possess specific authority to waive his principal’s fundamental constitutional rights to access the courts [and] to trial by jury.”