Wisconsin's Supreme Court Creates More Power for the Arbitrator

27 May 2015 Wisconsin Appellate Law Blog

Most commercial litigators know that a circuit court will enforce an arbitration agreement as long as a given dispute falls within the agreement’s scope. What is or is not within the scope of an agreement, however, has not always been clear. For example, could a court consider whether an arbitration request had been timely filed, or whether it was barred by estoppel or laches, or are such issues to be decided in arbitration?

The Wisconsin Supreme Court recently decided this issue in favor of arbitration in First Weber Group, Inc. v. Synergy Real Estate Group, LLC, a unanimous decision written by Justice Ziegler. 2015 WI 34.

The facts, in brief, are as follows. In 2008, First Weber paid a commission to one of its real-estate brokers, James Graham. First Weber later decided that the commission had been paid in error and tried to recoup the funds. Graham refused to pay, and the two sides agreed to arbitrate the dispute, as required by a realtor-industry code. Graham lost, but still refused to pay. First Weber responded by filing an action in circuit court to confirm the award, which the court did, though it refused to give First Weber its costs or attorneys’ fees.

First Weber then filed a second arbitration request, asking the arbitrators to decide whether the realtor-industry code required Graham to pay the costs and fees it incurred in confirming the first award. Graham refused to attend, so First Weber filed a petition in the circuit court to compel him to do so. The circuit court denied the petition, finding that First Weber’s arbitration request was untimely. The court of appeals affirmed.

The Supreme Court reversed. That court concluded that both lower courts had erred in deciding the issue of timeliness in the first instance, because timeliness is an issue of procedural arbitrability to be decided by arbitrators, not courts. The court specifically rejected the position taken by the court of appeals—namely, that procedural matters, such as timeliness, can be decided judicially, even if they are found within the agreement to arbitrate.

First Weber thus creates a hard-and-fast rule under Wisconsin law (and one that is consistent with its federal counterpart): In an action to compel arbitration, a court may consider only whether there is any reasonable construction of the arbitration agreement that could cover the subject matter of the dispute. If the dispute is within the agreement’s scope, any defenses to arbitration, such as untimeliness, estoppel, or waiver, are left to the arbitrators.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

New York Expands Pay Equity Law
22 July 2019
Labor & Employment Law Perspectives
The Face of DOL is New, the Name is Not; Trump Picks Scalia for Secretary of Labor
22 July 2019
Labor & Employment Law Perspectives
A Review of Recent Whistleblower Developments
19 July 2019
Legal News: Whistleblower Developments
Cloud security inadequate for Cyber threats, are you surprised?
19 July 2019
Internet, IT & e-Discovery Blog
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
2019 NDI Executive Exchange
14-15 November 2019
Chicago, IL
MAGI’s Clinical Research Conference
29 October 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Association for Corporate Counsel Annual Meeting 2019
27-30 October 2019
Phoenix, AZ