Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

You are here: Home / Archives for Arbitration / Court Decisions / Contract Interpretation

Contract Interpretation

Massachusetts Supreme Court Holds That Uber’s Registration Process Did Not Provide Reasonable Notice of Terms and Conditions and That Arbitration Was Therefore Improper

by

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently held that Uber’s notification of its “terms and conditions” during the registration process for its app did not provide “reasonable notice” to users of Uber’s terms, that there was therefore no valid contract between Uber and the users who were suing it, and that arbitration that had occurred had therefore been improper.

The Kauders sued Uber in Massachusetts Superior Court claiming, among other things, that it had unlawfully discriminated against Mr. Kauders on the basis of his disability because three Uber drivers refused to give him rides because he is blind and was accompanied by a guide dog.

Uber moved to compel arbitration under its terms and conditions. The court granted Uber’s motion and the parties arbitrated the case. The arbitrator ruled in favor of Uber.

Shortly thereafter, the First Circuit held, in a different case against Uber, that “Uber’s registration process did not create a contract because it did not provide reasonable notice to users of the terms and conditions” and there was “no enforceable contract requiring arbitration.”

In the Kauders litigation, Uber then moved to confirm the arbitration award. At the hearing on that motion, the Kauders raised the First Circuit’s decision and subsequently moved for reconsideration of the court’s decision compelling arbitration. The court granted that motion in light of the First Circuit’s decision and denied Uber’s motion to confirm. Uber appealed.

The Massachusetts Supreme Court agreed with the First Circuit and the Kauders that Uber’s registration process did not provide reasonable notice of its terms and conditions.

Uber argued that (1) the trial court lacked authority to deny its motion to confirm because the Kauders “failed to move to vacate the award within thirty days”; (2) the Kauders’ motion for reconsideration was untimely and improper “because there was no change in fact or law”; and (3) Uber’s registration process created a valid, enforceable contract requiring arbitration.

The Supreme Court rejected Uber’s argument about the Kauders’ failure to move to vacate the award, explaining that, unlike federal law, it “d[id] not consider participation in the arbitration process as requiring revisitation of the arbitrability issue within the thirty-day time period.”

Although the Supreme Court agreed with Uber’s argument that it was an abuse of discretion for the trial court to grant the Kauders’ motion for reconsideration, it declined to remand the case to require the trial court to confirm Uber’s arbitration award because “the issue of arbitrability would [still] be preserved for appeal” and the Kauders “would then undoubtedly appeal on that ground, and the case would be right back before” the Supreme Court.

Applying a “two-prong test” asking “whether there is reasonable notice of the terms and a reasonable manifestation of assent to those terms,” the court determined that Uber’s terms of service did not create a valid contract. When the Kauders created user accounts, a link to Uber’s “terms and conditions” was on the bottom of the third screen they saw during the registration process. The screen stated: “By creating an Uber account, you agree to the Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.” “Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy” was “in a rectangular box and in boldface font,” while the rest of the sentence in question was in ordinary type. The court described Uber’s “terms and conditions” as “extensive” and conferring broad indemnity on Uber.

The court concluded that Uber’s registration process did not provide “reasonable notice” of Uber’s “terms and conditions” under the circumstances, finding it significant that (1) “the interface did not require the user to scroll through the conditions or even select them,” even though Uber required its drivers to review its terms and conditions for drivers before registering to drive; (2) the notification about the “terms and conditions” was “oddly displayed,” with the important language notifying users that they were agreeing to something “being displayed less prominently than” the phrases “terms and conditions” and “privacy policy”; (3) the placement of the “terms and conditions” notification was on the “third screen” without any prior reference to the terms; and (4) the “title of the screen” and “the information on” it focused on payment, not conditions.

In sum, “the design of the interface for the app … enable[d], if not encourage[d], users to ignore the terms and conditions” and “[n]othing about [the] third screen … conveyed to a user that he or she should open a link that would reveal an extensive set of terms and conditions at the bottom of the screen.” “Instead of requiring its users to review [its] terms and conditions as it appear[ed] to do with its drivers, Uber ha[d] designed an interface that allow[ed] the registration to be completed without reviewing or even acknowledging the terms and conditions.” Thus, Uber “failed to show that it provided the [Kauders] with reasonable notice.”

There was therefore “no enforceable agreement between Uber and the [Kauders], and therefore the dispute [in this case] was not arbitrable.” Accordingly, the court remanded the case.

Kauders v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. SCJ-12883 (Jan. 4, 2021).

Eleventh Circuit Holds University Cannot Arbitrate Student’s Breach of Contract and Misrepresentation Claims

by

In Young v. Grand Canyon University, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia was wrong to compel arbitration of a student’s breach of contract and misrepresentation claims against a university, as federal regulation 34 C.F.R. § 685.300(e)-(f) prohibits a college or university that accepts federal student loan money from enforcing pre-dispute arbitration agreements when a student brings a “borrower defense claim.”

Plaintiff Donrich Young was enrolled in a doctoral degree program at Grand Canyon University in Arizona and took out federal loans to pay for the program. As part of Young’s admissions process, GCU required him to sign a comprehensive arbitration agreement, which stated that any dispute arising from his enrollment would be resolved by binding arbitration.

Young and seven other students filed a class action suit against GCU claiming that GCU misrepresented to students that they could finish a doctoral degree in 60 credit hours — but in reality, GCU designed its program so that finishing in 60 credit hours is unlikely, which then required students to take and pay for additional research continuation courses. Young and the other students asserted claims for breach of contract, intentional misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act. The district court dismissed the claims brought by all plaintiffs, except Young, on personal jurisdiction grounds.

GCU then moved to compel arbitration pursuant to the agreement Young had signed as part of his admissions application. The district court granted GCU’s motion to compel, holding that Young’s breach of contract, misrepresentation, and statutory fraud claims were not “borrower defense claims” as defined by the federal regulation at issue and, therefore, were not subject to the regulation’s prohibition on pre-dispute arbitration agreements.

The regulation defines “borrower defense claim” as a “claim that is or could be asserted as a borrower defense as defined in § 685.222(a)(5), including a claim other than one based on § 685.222(c) or (d) that may be asserted under § 685.222(b) if reduced to judgment.” The main disagreement between the parties was whether the phrase “including a claim other than” means to include or exclude claims based on section 685.222(c) or (d) — i.e., claims alleging breach of contract and substantial misrepresentation. The district court interpreted the phrase to exclude breach of contract and substantial misrepresentation claims from the regulation’s definition of “borrower defense claim” and ordered Young’s claims to arbitration.

On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit disagreed, finding that the regulation’s definition of “borrower defense claim” includes breach of contract and substantial misrepresentation claims and therefore shields those claims from arbitration. The panel noted that the district court’s interpretation defies common sense, questioning: “Why would a regulation that all acknowledge was designed to protect student-loan borrowers exclude the most basic, heartland claims that they are likely to bring?” The panel also recognized that the district court’s strained interpretation would include non-contract and non-misrepresentation claims only if reduced to judgment, which would render the “if reduced to judgment” aspect of the borrower defense claim protection meaningless. As a result, the panel reversed the district court’s decision.

Young v. Grand Canyon University, Inc., No. 19-13639 (11th Cir. Nov. 16, 2020).

Ninth Circuit Denies Non-Signatory’s Bid to Compel Arbitration of Trademark Infringement Claims

by

On remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals considered in Setty v. Shrinivas Sugandhalaya LLP the question whether non-signatories to an agreement may use state law doctrines, such as equitable estoppel, to compel arbitration. Although the Ninth Circuit recognized that non-signatories may have the power to compel arbitration using equitable estoppel under certain circumstances, it ultimately found that the defendant in this particular case was unable to do so.

The underlying case arose from a failed business relationship between two brothers, Balkrishna and Nagraj Setty. While they were in business together, the brothers had personally entered into a partnership agreement that required them to arbitrate disputes related to partnership rights. Eventually, the brothers parted ways, and each brother formed his own company. After Balkrishna Setty and his company (SS Bangalore) brought suit against Nagraj Setty’s company (SS Mumbai) for trademark infringement, SS Mumbai sought to compel arbitration based on the arbitration provision in the brothers’ partnership agreement.

The lower court denied SS Mumbai’s motion to compel, finding that only the brothers (and not their companies) were signatories to the partnership agreement, and Nagraj Setty was not a named defendant in the lawsuit. The Ninth Circuit upheld the lower court’s decision, holding that SS Mumbai could not equitably estop SS Bangalore from avoiding arbitration. SS Mumbai appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court remanded the case for further consideration following its recent decision in GE Energy Power Conversion France SAS, Corp. v. Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC, which ruled that the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards does not conflict with domestic equitable estoppel doctrines permitting enforcement of arbitration agreements by non-signatories.

On remand, the Ninth Circuit reaffirmed its earlier decision denying the motion to compel. The court stated that for equitable estoppel to apply in the arbitration context, “it is essential … that the subject matter of the dispute [is] intertwined with the contract providing for arbitration.” The court found that SS Bangalore’s claims against SS Mumbai for trademark infringement were not clearly “intertwined” with the brothers’ partnership agreement providing for arbitration, and thus SS Mumbai, a non-signatory defendant, lacked the power to compel arbitration in this matter.

Court Compels Arbitration Because Non-Signatory “Knowingly Exploited” and Obtained Benefits of Agreement

by

The Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently compelled arbitration involving a claim by a plaintiff who had not signed a Comcast subscriber agreement on the ground that the plaintiff had used benefits under the agreement and exercised control over the Comcast account. The court held that the plaintiff was therefore equitably estopped from avoiding arbitration.

James Shelton’s father signed up for Comcast and agreed to Comcast’s subscriber agreement, which provided, among other things, that Mr. Shelton’s father was accepting the agreement “on behalf of all persons who use [Comcast’s] Equipment and/or Service(s) at the Premises” (i.e., the Shelton household) and that Mr. Shelton’s father had “sole responsibility for ensuring that all other users understand and comply with the terms and conditions of this Agreement and any applicable policies.” The agreement also contained an arbitration clause.

Mr. Shelton, who lived in the Shelton household, subsequently placed a service call to Comcast in which he acknowledged using Comcast’s services and setting up his account online. Mr. Shelton also “associated his own personal cell phone with the Shelton Household Account.”

Mr. Shelton later filed suit alleging that Comcast and other defendants violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by “check[ing] his credit report without a permissible purpose.”

Comcast moved to compel arbitration pursuant to the subscriber agreement.

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted Comcast’s motion. Applying Pennsylvania law, the court held that Mr. Shelton was “equitably estopped from avoiding the Arbitration Provision” in the subscriber agreement because, even though “other members of [Mr. Shelton’s] household … originally contracted for Comcast’s services,” Mr. Shelton had “sought and obtained benefits under the agreement by … not only using the Comcast services provided under the agreement at the Shelton Household, but also by exercising control over the account.” Mr. Shelton “‘did more than just passively benefit from the services.’”

Shelton v. Comcast Corp., No. 2:20-cv-01763 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 21, 2021).

New York Court Finds the Term “Exhaustion” in Excess Policy Was Ambiguous, Rules That Full Limits of Underlying Insurance Need Not Be Paid for Excess Policy to Attach

by

Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co. sued OneBeacon Insurance Co. for breach of a facultative reinsurance certificate. Fireman’s Fund settled claims with its insured and allocated a portion of the settlement to a Fireman’s Fund excess policy reinsured by OneBeacon. OneBeacon denied Fireman’s Fund’s claim, arguing that its reinsurance obligations did not attach until all insurance underlying the Fireman’s Fund policy were exhausted in payment of the full limits of the underlying policies. The Fireman’s Fund policy stated that it applies “only after all underlying insurance has been exhausted,” but did not define “exhaustion.” The reinsurance certificate provided that OneBeacon’s liability shall follow Fireman’s Fund’s, that the terms of the certificate shall be subject “in all respects” to the Fireman’s Fund policy, except as stated in the certificate, and that “all claims involving this reinsurance, when settled by [Fireman’s Fund], shall be binding on [OneBeacon].”

On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court agreed with Fireman’s Fund that the term “exhaustion” was ambiguous as used in the Fireman’s Fund policy, as the policy did not specify whether the full limits of underlying insurance must actually be paid before the Fireman’s Fund policy attaches. Applying Second Circuit precedent established in Zeig v. Massachusetts Bonding Co., 23 F.2d 665 (2d Cir. 1928), the court held that once the underlying insurer settled and discharged the claims against the insured, Fireman’s Fund was within its right to treat the underlying limits as “exhausted,” even though the underlying insurer did not actually pay the full limits of its policy. In addition, based on the follow-the-fortunes and follow-the-settlements doctrines, the court found it was barred from second-guessing Fireman’s Fund’s post-settlement allocation decisions. The court therefore granted Fireman’s Fund’s motion for summary judgment and denied OneBeacon’s cross-motion.

Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co. v. OneBeacon Insurance Co., No. 1:14-cv-04718 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 19, 2020).