AMANDA KERNAHAN VS. HOME WARRANTY ADMINISTRATOR OF Â FLORIDA, INC. (L-7052-15, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-1355-16T4

Amanda Kernahan bought two home service agreements in March–April 2015; she cancelled one for a full refund and made claims exceeding $3,000 under the other.
Kernahan sued in November 2015 asserting CFA and TCCWNA claims and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, alleging misrepresentation of contract term (cover page vs. "coverage period" clause).
The contract contained a five-page arbitration/mediation clause titled "MEDIATION" on the last page, specifying mandatory arbitration (AAA, New Jersey), an "exclusive" remedy, caps on recoverable amounts, and waivers of certain damages.
Defendants moved to dismiss or compel arbitration; the trial court denied the motion, finding the arbitration clause failed Atalese's clarity requirements and did not adequately notify Kernahan she was waiving her right to sue in court or have a jury trial.
The trial court found the clause was not written in a clear, straightforward, or prominent way and lacked explicit waiver language; defendants appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the arbitration clause was enforceable	Kernahan: Clause fails Atalese clarity requirement; does not clearly notify waiver of right to go to court or jury	Defendants: Clause is valid under Atalese and makes arbitration the exclusive remedy	Clause unenforceable — fails to clearly and unambiguously notify waiver of judicial forum
Whether parties had mutual assent to arbitrate	Kernahan: No, because she lacked notice she was surrendering court/jury rights	Defendants: Mutual assent exists; clause states arbitration is exclusive	No mutual-assent clarity; must understand arbitration replaces court remedy
Whether clause sufficiently limited remedies/affected statutory claims	Kernahan: Clause eliminates statutory remedies (treble, punitive, fees) without clear waiver	Defendants: Clause permissibly defines remedies and limits	Limitation unenforceable absent clear waiver; consumer must be informed arbitration substitutes for court relief
Procedural effect of ambiguous arbitration clause	Kernahan: Ambiguity means deny compel-arbitration motion	Defendants: Ambiguity should not preclude enforcement here	Court denies motion to compel arbitration; enforces clarity standard

Atalese v. U.S. Legal Servs. Grp., L.P., 219 N.J. 430 (2014) (arbitration clauses must clearly and unambiguously notify waiver of judicial forum and jury rights)
Martindale v. Sandvik, Inc., 173 N.J. 76 (2002) (upheld arbitration clause that explicitly waived right to jury trial)
Morgan v. Sanford Brown Inst., 225 N.J. 289 (2016) (arbitration must be presented as substitute for court relief to be enforceable)
Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366 (1995) (questions of law reviewed de novo)
Garfinkel v. Morristown Obstetrics & Gynecology Assocs., 168 N.J. 124 (2001) (waiver of rights must be clearly and unmistakably established)