Contract Interpretation

In Nu Skin Enterprises Inc. v. Raab, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals considered the preclusive effect of a state trial court decision as it related to the arbitrability of the parties’ dispute under the Federal Arbitration Act.

As the trial court relayed, the underlying dispute involved beauty products marketer Nu Skin Enterprises and several of its distributors. The distributors filed an action against Nu Skin in Washington state court alleging, among other things, violations of Washington’s consumer protection act. Nu Skin then filed a separate action in federal court in the District of Utah, seeking to compel arbitration of the parties’ dispute in Utah pursuant to identical arbitration provisions in two of the parties’ agreements.

Before the Utah district court had a chance to rule on the question of arbitrability, the Washington state court denied Nu Skin’s motion to dismiss, holding that the dispute was not subject to arbitration under the parties’ agreements. Thereafter, the district court denied Nu Skin’s motion to compel arbitration, holding that the district court was bound by the Washington state court’s earlier conclusion under the doctrine of issue preclusion. Nu Skin appealed this ruling to the Tenth Circuit.

In a procedural twist, a Washington appellate court reversed the state trial court’s decision, holding that the claims in the litigation were disputes subject to the arbitration agreements and remanding to the trial court for further proceedings, including a determination of whether the arbitration clause was unconscionable. In the related appeal that was then pending in the Tenth Circuit, both parties acknowledged that as a result of the Washington appellate court’s decision, the state trial court’s decision on arbitrability no longer had preclusive effect.

Effectively agreeing with both parties, the Tenth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision, holding that the state trial court decision on which the district court relied no longer had preclusive effect. The court then remanded the case to the district court to consider the issue of arbitrability anew, noting: “We express no view on any other issue in this case, including the possible preclusive effect of any other proceedings or decisions in the Washington courts.”

Nu Skin Enterprises Inc. v. Raab, No. 22-4068 (10th Cir. Mar. 19, 2024).

Dana Jennings and Joseph Furlong each bought a car from Carvana, a nationwide online used car dealer. On the day of their purchases, each signed three separate documents: a “retail purchasing agreement,” a “retail installment sales contract,” and an arbitration agreement.

The purchasers filed a class action lawsuit against Carvana alleging that Carvana breached a contractual promise to properly license, title, and register their vehicles with Pennsylvania. Carvana moved to compel arbitration, but the district court denied the motion, finding that the arbitration agreements were not enforceable under Pennsylvania’s Motor Vehicle Sales Finance Act because they were not expressly incorporated into the retail installment sales contracts signed by the purchasers.

On appeal, the Third Circuit affirmed. Under Pennsylvania’s Motor Vehicle Sales Finance Act, a contract governing an installment sale of a vehicle must: (1) be in writing; (2) contain all agreements between the buyer and the installment seller relating to the installment sale of the motor vehicle; and (3) be signed by the buyer and seller. The second requirement creates a so-called one-document rule, which provides that no other agreement is enforceable as part of the sale unless it is included within the installment sales contract, in this case, the retail installment sales contract.

But here, the arbitration agreements were separate from the retail installment sales contracts. In addition, the retail installment sales contract included an integration clause, which expressly stated that the contracts constituted the complete and exclusive agreements between the parties. Because of the integration clause, the parol evidence rule applied and precluded consideration of other written agreements entered into by the parties.

Carvana argued that because all the agreements were executed on the same day and as part of the same transaction, they should collectively be deemed one contract, which would render the arbitration agreements enforceable. The Third Circuit disagreed, pointing out that although the “same transaction concept” exists in Pennsylvania, the contracts relating to the same transaction are enforceable only if they reference or incorporate one another, which the agreements here did not do.

As a result, the Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling that the arbitration agreements were unenforceable and remanded for further proceedings.

Jennings v. Carvana, LLC, No. 22-2948 (3d Cir. Mar. 21, 2024).

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld a decision compelling arbitration based on an arbitration provision in website “terms of use,” even though those terms were in a hyperlink.

In Patrick v. Running Warehouse LLC, a group of consumers brought six putative class actions against online sporting goods retailers after their personal information was exposed in a data breach. When purchasing goods from the defendants’ websites, they had to click a button that said “place order” or “submit order.” Next to that button was a statement that read: “By submitting your order you … agree to our privacy policy and terms of use.” The phrase “terms of use” was a hyperlink that led to the defendants’ terms of use, which contained an arbitration provision.

The defendants move to compel arbitration based on the arbitration provision in the terms of use. The district court granted that motion and the plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed.

The plaintiffs primarily argued that the websites provided insufficient notice of the arbitration provisions. The Ninth Circuit rejected that argument. It noted that inquiry notice was sufficient as long as “the website provides reasonably conspicuous notice of the terms to which the consumer will be bound; and (2) the consumer takes some action, such as clicking a button or checking a box, that unambiguously manifests his or her assent to those terms.” The court noted that hyperlinks can satisfy that standard as long as they are “displayed in a font size and format such that the court can fairly assume that a reasonably prudent Internet user would have seen it.” The defendants’ hyperlinks satisfied that standard because, for example, the notice was prominently displayed on an uncluttered page, clear and legible, and the “terms of use” hyperlink, colored bright green, was easily distinguishable and clearly clickable, resembling other links on the page.

The Ninth Circuit distinguished those facts from a case in which it recently held that there was insufficient inquiry notice because the “terms and conditions” in that case were printed in a tiny gray font much smaller than surrounding website elements, it was “barely legible to the naked eye.”

The Ninth Circuit also rejected the plaintiffs’ arguments that the arbitration provisions were invalid under California law and that they were unconscionable. The court further held that the parties delegated the question of arbitrability by invoking JAMS’ rules, which provide that arbitrability disputes are for the arbitrator, not the court.

Harbor Homeowner’s Association Inc. sued its insurers in Louisiana state court seeking to recover damages allegedly caused by the insurers’ failure to pay claims related to Hurricane Ida. The insurers removed to federal court, arguing that the action related to an arbitration agreement falling under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York Convention), and filed a motion to compel arbitration.

The plaintiff argued in response that arbitration provisions in surplus lines insurance contracts are not enforceable under Louisiana law. The plaintiff also argued that, because the policy included a choice-of-law provision selecting New York law, the court should follow Second Circuit precedent holding that, pursuant to the McCarran-Ferguson Act, the New York Convention did not preempt contrary state law.

The court disagreed, noting that arbitrability under the FAA is a question of federal law, not state law, whereas a choice-of-law clause in an insurance policy provides the substantive insurance law applicable to the contract. As such, the choice-of-law clause did not bear on the arbitrability of the dispute.  Moreover, the court noted that “application of New York state law does not entail application of Second Circuit federal law simply because New York sits within the Second Circuit; a Second Circuit case construing federal law is not New York state law.”

Based on the above, the court found that it was constrained to follow Fifth Circuit precedent holding that the New York Convention preempts contradictory state law, including Louisiana law prohibiting the enforcement of arbitration provisions in insurance contracts, and ordered the parties to arbitrate their dispute.

Harbor Homeowner’s Association, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, No. 2:23-cv-05043 (E.D. La. Jan. 12, 2024).