• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

  • About
    • Events
  • Articles
    • Treaty Tips
    • Special Focus
    • Market
  • Contact
  • Exclusive Content
    • Blog Staff Picks
    • Cat Risks
    • Regulatory Modernization
    • Webinars
  • Subscribe
You are here: Home / Arbitration / Court Decisions / Arbitration Process Issues / Eleventh Circuit Finds that Arbitration Clause in One Agreement Applies to Disputes Regarding a Related Agreement

Eleventh Circuit Finds that Arbitration Clause in One Agreement Applies to Disputes Regarding a Related Agreement

November 21, 2018 by Rob DiUbaldo

Does an arbitration clause in a one but not the other of two contracts executed by the same parties at the same time apply to a dispute regarding the contract that does not contain the arbitration clause? The Eleventh Circuit has determined that it can and, under Georgia law and the particular circumstances of this case, it does.

The dispute arose out of Theodore Wood’s resignation from his employment with Parks IP Law, LLC and creation of his own firm—Wood IP, LLC. As part of this separation, the parties entered into two agreements: a Separation Agreement, which included an agreement to arbitrate any disputes in Atlanta, Georgia, and a Promissory Note, which did not include an arbitration provision but did include a venue provision stating that “[a]ny action or proceeding” between the parties “must be brought in the State of Georgia, Fulton County . . . .” When Parks IP brought suit alleging a breach of the Promissory Note, Wood moved to compel arbitration, but the trial court denied his motion.

On appeal, Parks IP argued that the arbitration provision in the Separation Agreement did not apply to the Promissory Note, because the Promissory Note did not reference the Separation Agreement. The Eleventh Circuit disagreed. Noting that documents executed at the same time in the course of the same transaction are construed together under Georgia law, the court found that this applied to the Separation Agreement and the Promissory Note. While the Promissory Note did not reference the Separation Agreement, the Separation Agreement did reference the Promissory Note, as the Promissory Noted spelled out the terms by which debts discussed in the Separation Agreement were to be paid.

Parks IP further argued that the Promissory Note’s venue provision was in direct conflict with the arbitration provision, but the court found that the phrase “any action or proceeding” in the venue provision was not limited to actions in court, and was broad enough to include an arbitration proceeding. Further, the court found no conflict between the Promissory Note’s specification of venue in Fulton County and the Separation Agreement’s specification of arbitration in Atlanta, as the two could reasonably be construed together to mean that arbitration should occur in the part of Atlanta that is within Fulton County.

Parks IP Law, LLC v. Wood et al., No. 18-11178 (11th Cir. Nov. 8, 2018)

This post written by Jason Brost.

See our disclaimer.

Filed Under: Arbitration Process Issues

Primary Sidebar

Carlton Fields Logo

A blog focused on reinsurance and arbitration law and practice by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Focused Topics

Hot Topics

Read the results of Artemis’ latest survey of reinsurance market professionals concerning the state of the market and their intentions for 2019.

Recent Updates

Market (1/27/2019)
Articles (1/2/2019)

See our advanced search tips.

Subscribe

If you would like to receive updates to Reinsurance Focus® by email, visit our Subscription page.
© 2008–2025 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · Disclaimers and Conditions of Use

Reinsurance Focus® is a registered service mark of Carlton Fields. All Rights Reserved.

Please send comments and questions to the Reinsurance Focus Administrators

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.