Driver Pipeline Co. v. Williams Transport, LLC, 104 So. 3d 845

Contract between Williams Transport and Driver Pipeline to clear 44 miles of right-of-way
Work Order attached Terms and Conditions containing a broad arbitration clause
Two contradictory provisions: one stating Work Order supersedes Terms and Conditions, another stating Work Order is subject to Terms and Conditions
After partial performance, Driver Pipeline terminated the contract and employed Buckley Equipment to complete the work
Trial court denied Driver Pipeline’s motion to compel arbitration due to superseding clause; reconsideration denied
Court held Driver Pipeline’s interlocutory appeal timely and reversed/affirmed the denial of arbitration based on lack of agreement to arbitrate

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of the interlocutory appeal	Driver Pipeline timely under Rule 4(d)	Williams Transport argues Rule 5 applies; untimely	Rule 4(d) governs; appeal timely
Whether the parties agreed to arbitrate all disputes	Arbitration clause in Terms and Conditions governs; signed by Williams Transport	Work Order supersedes Terms and Conditions; no arbitration	No agreement to arbitrate; arbitration denied

Sawyers v. Herrin-Gear Chevrolet Co., Inc., 26 So.3d 1026 (Miss. 2010) (direct-appeal review of denial of motion to compel arbitration)
East Ford, Inc. v. Taylor, 826 So.2d 709 (Miss. 2002) (two-prong arbitration analysis; agreement and scope)
Rogers-Dabbs Chevrolet-Hummer, Inc. v. Blakeney, 950 So.2d 170 (Miss. 2007) (arbitration requires actual agreement to arbitrate)
Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614 (1985) (external legal constraints may foreclose arbitration)
Smith ex rel. Smith v. Captain D’s, LLC, 963 So.2d 1116 (Miss. 2007) (liberal policy favoring arbitration but not beyond contract scope)
Tupelo Auto Sales v. Scott, 844 So.2d 1167 (Miss. 2003) (appeal from denial of arbitration as direct appeal)