Farrell v. Twenty-First Century Insurance, 301 Conn. 657

Plaintiffs Farrells sued Twenty-First Century Insurance to compel arbitration arising from a December 20, 2000 motor vehicle collision.
Between 2005 and 2007, counsel exchanged at least fourteen letters discussing arbitration, including drafted agreements and proposed high/low parameters.
In February 2008, Farrells filed a complaint seeking a court order to compel arbitration; defendant moved for summary judgment asserting no written arbitration agreement existed.
The trial court granted summary judgment, concluding there was no clear, express written agreement on arbitration terms.
The Appellate Court affirmed, holding the correspondence suggested an informal agreement but not a written agreement with definite terms for arbitration.
This certified appeal asks whether the correspondence and oral communications could form a written agreement to arbitrate.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did correspondence constitute a written arbitration agreement?	Farrells contend the letters collectively formed a written agreement to arbitrate.	Twenty-First Century contends there was no written agreement, with terms unsettled and not mutually agreed.	No; no written agreement to arbitrate existed.
Can oral communications supply missing terms to form a written arbitration agreement?	Oral communications could supply missing terms to create a written agreement.	Oral agreements are not enforceable components of a written arbitration contract.	No; oral communications cannot create a written arbitration agreement.
Does totality of correspondence and attorney affidavit create a genuine issue of material fact about arbitration?	The whole record could show a manifested intent to arbitrate.	The record shows persistent lack of any concrete, mutual terms to form a written agreement.	No genuine issue; summary judgment proper.

Bennett v. Meader, 208 Conn. 352 (1988) (only written arbitration agreements are enforceable)
Jacob v. Seaboard, Inc., 28 Conn. App. 270 (1992) (arbitration must be clear and direct and not implicit)
Bridgeport Pipe Eng'g Co. v. DeMatteo Construction Co., 159 Conn. 242 (1970) (identical understanding required for a valid contract to arbitrate)
Suffield Development Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Society for Savings, 243 Conn. 832 (1998) (arbitration agreements must be definite and certain as to terms)
Garrity v. McCaskey, 223 Conn. 1 (1992) (unrestricted arbitration absent express qualifiers)
Voris v. Middlesex Mut. Assurance Co., 297 Conn. 589 (2010) (legally immaterial issues cannot create genuine disputes)
Assn. Resources, Inc. v. Wall, 298 Conn. 145 (2010) (oral intent to arbitrate not dispositive of written agreement existence)
Dugan v. Mobile Medical Testing Services, Inc., 265 Conn. 791 (2003) (summary judgment standards and evidence evaluation)
Bennett v. Meader, 208 Conn. 352 (1988) (written arbitration agreements required; oral not enough)