Recent Ga. App. decision misses the mark

Consider this scenario, one party says there is an arbitration agreement, and the other party says there isn’t. Wouldn’t it be prudent to resolve this question of arbitrability before the time and expense of the arbitration? In hindsight, the parties in Panhandle Fire Protection v. Batson Cook Co., Slip Copy, 2007 WL 3203072 (Ga. App. Nov. 1, 2007), probably wish they had. This case raises several interesting questions.

Batson Cook (BCC), a corporation headquartered in Georgia, subcontracted a Florida company, Panhandle (PFP), to install sprinklers in an Alabama project. BCC believed the operative version of the subcontract was governed by Georgia law and contained an arbitration clause providing for arbitration under AAA rules in Georgia. In contrast, PFP believed that the operative version of the subcontract provided that all disputes be handled in a Florida court. After the relationship soured and BCC filed a demand for arbitration with the AAA, PFP notified BCC and the AAA that it wasn’t bound to arbitrate. It is important to note here that apparently BCC did not seek to compel arbitration nor did PFP file a petition in any court to stay the arbitration. The arbitrator was appointed and ruled PFP was bound to arbitrate in Georgia. The hearing was held and an award issued in favor of BCC. PFP did not participate in any way other than to give notice that it believed it wasn’t bound to arbitrate. The Troup County Superior Court confirmed the award and awarded attorneys’ fees under OCGA 9-15-14. The Georgia Court of Appeals vacated the trial court’s order and remanded with instructions for the lower court to determine whether or not there was an enforceable arbitration agreement before it could act on the confirmation of the award.

Whoa! Isn’t this a bit like trying to put the horse back in the barn, the cat back in the bag, etc. Shouldn’t it be incumbent on one of the parties to have tried to resolve the question of arbitrability before getting this far down the pipeline? On one hand, I’d argue that BCC satisfied any responsibility it had by obtaining an arbitral ruling that PFP was bound to arbitrate. After all, under BCC’s version of the situation, AAA Rules applied and R-7 empowers an arbitrator to “rule on his or her own jurisdiction including any objections with respect to the existence…of the arbitration agreement.” Although both federal and state arbitration law (the later of which the Court said would apply) allow a party to seek an order compelling arbitration, BCC should not be required to do so to have a valid arbitration. Nevertheless, on appeal, R-7 isn’t mentioned. Are we to assume that R-7 is always trumped by the “clear and unmistakable” standard of First Options? That is to say, if the parties contest whether or not they entered into an arbitration agreement, then is it impossible to have clear and unmistakable agreement to submit this particular gateway issue to the arbitrator?

On the other hand, I’d argue that PFP had a responsibility to seek an order to stay the arbitration, clearly available to it under OCGA § 9-9-6(b). Moreover, the GAC expressly provides that a party served with a demand cannot argue to vacate the award on the basis that there isn’t a valid arbitral agreement. OCGA § 9-9-13(c)(2). By not seeking a stay, PFP waived its right subsequently seek to vacate the award on the grounds that a valid arbitration agreement doesn’t exist. When we drafted the GAC, we created this bar to encourage early resolution of the gateway issue of arbitrability and to discourage challenges to arbitrability after one or both parties had incurred the costs of the process. Moreover, the law should insure that parties not have to adjudicate the same thing twice, once in the arbitral forum and again in the courts.

If after its independent examination, the Troup County court concludes that there isn’t a valid arbitration agreement, then BCC will have to retry the matter in a Florida court after having gone through the considerable expense of already adjudicating the matter and arguing the appeal and subsequent lower court hearing on remand. Ouch! If the Troup County court finds the arbitral agreement to be valid, it can simply confirm the award, in which case, the costs to BCC will be “only” the appellate proceedings and the lower court hearing, neither of which is insubstantial. If I were BCC, I’d seek attorneys’ fees again on the basis of PFP’s failure to seek a stay of arbitration. But that’s just my opinion.