Disclaimer

  • The information contained in this blog is provided for informational purposes only. It is not legal advice and should not be construed as providing legal advice on any subject matter

Arbitration

June 28, 2007

Arbitrator Decides Whether Conditions Precedent To Arbitrating Have Been Satisfied

BRM Construction v. Marais Gaylord (Colo. App. 2007)

The Colorado Court of Appeals held that the arbitrator gets to decide whether or not the claimant has satisfied the required conditions precedent to initiating arbitration. The defendant argued that the plaintiff was required to first submit the claim to the architect for consideration, and that plaintiff was untimely in demanding arbitration. The district court and the Court of Appeals both decided that these issues were for the arbitrator to resolve, and the arbitrator's decision on the issues was not subject to review. "[A]n arbitrator’s resolution of [issues concerning compliance with procedural conditions precedent to arbitration], even if erroneous, is not a ground for vacating or refusing to confirm the award."

Read slip opinion

May 29, 2007

No More Intertwining Doctrine In Colorado

Ingold v. AIMCO (Colo. 2007)

The Colorado Supreme Court does away with the intertwining doctrine. Arbitrable claims go forward in arbitration, and the trial court can consider whether or not to stay the non-arbitrable claims.

Read slip opinion

February 08, 2007

Arbitration Clause In Expired Contract Still Enforceable

Shams v. Howard (Colo. App. 2007)

The Court of Appeals held that an arbitration clause was still enforceable even though the contract that it was contained in had expired. Also, although the claims brought sounded only in tort (such as negligent construction of a home), the arbitration clause in the expired contract still applied.

Continue reading "Arbitration Clause In Expired Contract Still Enforceable" »

October 23, 2006

An Agreement To Arbitrate Need Not Be Explicit

Lane v. Urgitus (Colo. 2006)

The Colorado Supreme Court held that an agreement to arbitrate can be implied. The dispute concerned who, among various brokers, was entitled to referral fees. The brokers were all members of a trade association, a condition of which was that the members agree to arbitrate disputes with other members. The brokers later entered into an agreement among themselves concerning referral fees. This later agreement did not contain an arbitration provision. A dispute arose concerning referral fees. The Court held that the duty to arbitrate disputes in the trade association membership agreement was an implied duty in the brokers' agreement amongst themselves.

Continue reading "An Agreement To Arbitrate Need Not Be Explicit" »

Your email address:


Powered by FeedBlitz

April 2009

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30