Jane Doe v. Hallmark Partners, LP, 227 So. 3d 1052

Tenant (Jane Doe) was kidnapped, pistol‑whipped, and repeatedly raped in the apartment complex parking lot; she sued the landlord (Hallmark), its managers/staff, and the security contractor (SEI) for premises‑liability/negligence for failing to provide reasonable security.
Jane’s lease contained an arbitration agreement (executed as an addendum) covering disputes “arising out of or in any way related to Lessee’s occupancy and leasing of the subject property.”
Hallmark (and nonsignatory SEI) moved to compel arbitration; the trial court granted the motions and stayed proceedings.
On appeal, Jane argued the arbitration clause is limited, her tort claims fall outside its scope, and enforcement offends public policy.
The Mississippi Supreme Court found the arbitration agreement valid but held Jane’s common‑law premises‑liability claims do not fall within the clause’s limiting language (which ties arbitration to disputes related to occupancy/leasing of Apt. 9‑C), reversed the stay, and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the arbitration agreement is valid	Jane initially challenged validity but did not pursue it on appeal	Hallmark argued agreement is valid and binding	Court: Agreement is valid (no challenge on appeal)
Whether Jane’s premises‑liability claims are within the arbitration clause’s scope	Jane: Claims are torts based on common‑law duties in common areas and do not arise from occupancy/leasing of Apt. 9‑C	Hallmark: Clause is broad and claims relate to leasing because she was on premises due to the lease; SEI can enforce as nonsignatory	Court: Claims fall outside the clause; clause limits arbitration to matters related to occupancy/leasing of the leased apartment (Apt. 9‑C)
Whether federal pro‑arbitration policy requires arbitration here	Jane: Policy does not expand parties’ agreement to arbitrate disputes they did not agree to submit	Hallmark: Pro‑arbitration policy favors resolving doubts in favor of arbitration	Court: Federal policy applies but does not compel arbitration beyond what parties agreed; must enforce plain contract language
Whether public policy renders the lease arbitration clause unenforceable in residential leases	Jane: Arbitration of residential tort claims violates public policy (alternative argument)	Hallmark: Enforce clause as written	Court: Did not reach public‑policy argument because claims fall outside scope; remanded without addressing policy issue

Volt Info. Sciences, Inc. v. Bd. of Trs. of the Leland Stanford Junior Univ., 489 U.S. 468 (U.S. 1989) (federal policy favoring arbitration exists but arbitration is a matter of contract)
AT & T Techs., Inc. v. Communications Workers of America, 475 U.S. 643 (U.S. 1986) (party cannot be compelled to arbitrate disputes it has not agreed to submit)
Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Byrd, 470 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1985) (courts should enforce arbitration agreements according to parties’ intent)
Smith ex rel. Smith v. Captain D’s, LLC, 963 So.2d 1116 (Miss. 2007) (rape‑based tort claims were beyond scope of an arbitration clause limited to employment)
Pennzoil Expl. & Prod. Co. v. Ramco Energy Ltd., 139 F.3d 1061 (5th Cir. 1998) (distinction between narrow “arise out of” clauses and broad “relate to” clauses)
Linde Health Care Staffing, Inc. v. Claiborne Cty. Hosp., 198 So.3d 318 (Miss. 2016) (discussion of arbitration as contractual and limits of pro‑arbitration policy)
Fipps v. Glenn Miller Constr. Co., Inc., 662 So.2d 594 (Miss. 1995) (landlord/tenant relationship creates duty regarding common areas)
Seifert v. U.S. Home Corp., 750 So.2d 633 (Fla. 1999) (arbitration provisions that do not indicate inclusion of independent tort claims should not be read to cover them)