King v. Bryant
737 S.E.2d 802
N.C. Ct. App.2013Background
- Plaintiffs King and O’Neal sue Dr. Bryant and Village Surgical for medical malpractice related to a 14 May 2009 inguinal hernia repair that allegedly injured King’s aorta.
- King signed an Agreement to Alternative Dispute Resolution (arbitration) prior to surgery, proposing three arbitrators and rules to govern arbitration.
- Defendants moved to stay proceedings and compel arbitration, asserting the Agreement governs and FAA applies; Plaintiffs opposed enforcement.
- The trial court denied the motion, finding the Agreement indefinite and not a binding contract, and the matter remained in litigation.
- Defendants appealed, arguing FAA governs and the agreement is enforceable; the issue was treated as interlocutory but immediately appealable.
- On appeal, the court reverses and remands for further proceedings, holding FAA applies and addressing indefiniteness and unconscionability issues on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the arbitration agreement sufficiently definite to enforce? | King argues the agreement leaves material terms to future agreement. | Bryant/ Village contend FAA governs and the agreement is enforceable despite open terms. | Indefiniteness rejected; FAA governs and permits court appointment of arbitrators if needed. |
| Should unconscionability and non-signatory issues be decided, and under what law? | Plaintiffs contend unconscionability and applicability to O’Neal’s loss of consortium should bar enforcement. | Defendants seek enforcement and a determination of these defenses. | Remand for trial court to apply NC unconscionability law; FAA governs unconscionability considerations; non-signatory issues to be addressed on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Veazey v. Durham, 231 N.C. 357 (1950) (final disposition requirement for final judgment; interlocutory appeal allowed for arbitration denial)
- Barnhouse v. Am. Express Fin. Advisors, Inc., 151 N.C. App. 507, 566 S.E.2d 130 (2002) (interlocutory denial of arbitration appeal; standard considerations)
- Carter v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., N.C. App. (2012) (2012) (de novo review of arbitration‑subject determination)
- Cornelius v. Lipscomb, 734 S.E.2d 870 (2012) (FAA applicability and state/federal law interplay in arbitration)
- Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson, 130 S. Ct. 2772 (2010) (federal policy favoring arbitration; FAA preempts conflicting state law)
- Ragan v. Wheat First Sec., Inc., 138 N.C. App. 453, 531 S.E.2d 874 (2000) (state contract defenses may apply to invalidate arbitration agreements under FAA)
- Martin v. Vance, 133 N.C. App. 116, 514 S.E.2d 306 (1999) (mutual promises to arbitrate constitute adequate consideration)
- Johnston Cty. v. R.N. Rouse & Co., 331 N.C. 88, 414 S.E.2d 30 (1992) (strong public policy favoring arbitration in NC)
- Watts v. Cumberland Cty. Hosp. Sys., Inc., 317 N.C. 110, 343 S.E.2d 879 (1986) (fiduciary duty in physician/patient relationship; disclosure duties)