Fernando Osornia v. Amerimex Motor & Controls, Inc.
367 S.W.3d 707
Tex. App.2012Background
- Interlocutory appeal from trial court’s order denying a defendant’s application to compel arbitration under Texas law.
- Settlement Agreement requires arbitration of “any and all claims arising out of this Agreement.”
- Viking Offshore (USA), Inc. assigned its claims to AmeriMex and AmeriMex asserted those assigned claims against Osornia and Becker in a second lawsuit.
- Viking was not a party to the First Lawsuit or the Settlement Agreement, and there is no reference to Viking in the Settlement Agreement.
- AmeriMex’s live pleading asserts tort claims arising after Viking’s assignment of its claims to AmeriMex; AmeriMex seeks to arbitrate those claims if within the scope of the arbitration clause.
- The court holds that AmeriMex’s claims against Osornia fall outside the arbitration clause’s scope and thus cannot be compelled to arbitrate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in denying arbitration. | Osornia | Osornia | No error; arbitration denied. |
| Whether the Viking-to-AmeriMex assignment is void against public policy. | Osornia | Osornia | Assignment void not controlling to arbitration scope; issue overruled. |
Key Cases Cited
- Prudential Sec. Inc. v. Marshall, 909 S.W.2d 896 (Tex. 1995) (arbitrability presumption for broad clauses)
- Washburn v. Societe Commerciale de Reassurance, 831 F.2d 149 (7th Cir. 1987) (claims not within arbitration scope unless clearly interconnected)
- Texaco, Inc. v. American Trading Transp. Co., 644 F.2d 1152 (5th Cir. 1981) (tort claims not covered by arbitration when not arising under the contract)
- Coffman v. Provost Umphrey Law Firm, L.L.P., 161 F. Supp. 2d 720 (E.D. Tex. 2001) (breach-related pre-arbitration claims may remain outside arbitration)
- IKON Office Solutions, Inc. v. Eifert, 2 S.W.3d 688 (Tex. App.—Hous. [14th Dist.] 1999) (standard for determining scope of arbitration clause)
- In re Rubiola, 334 S.W.3d 220 (Tex. 2011) (discusses scope and intertwined claims; Marshall referenced)
- AutoNation USA Corp. v. Dealer Solutions, L.L.C., 105 S.W.3d 189 (Tex. App.—Hou. [1st Dist.] 2005) (interpretation of broad arbitration clauses; not controlling here)
- In re Igloo Prods. Corp., 238 S.W.3d 574 (Tex. App.—Hou. [14th Dist.] 2007) (claims not within arbitration when not arising under contract)