Regions Bank v. Rice, 209 So. 3d 1108

In Oct. 2011 Mary N. Rice opened a checking and a savings account with Regions Bank by signing one‑page signature cards that incorporated Regions’ Deposit Agreement by reference.
The Deposit Agreement contains a broad arbitration clause allowing either party to arbitrate “any controversy, claim…dispute,” and a delegation clause requiring the arbitrator to decide threshold arbitrability questions.
In Mar. 2015 Rice sued Regions for injuries from a fall on Regions’ premises. Regions moved to compel arbitration based on the Deposit Agreement.
Rice opposed, arguing her tort claim is outside the arbitration clause, that she lacked notice of the arbitration clause (it was incorporated by reference), and that the arbitration clause is unconscionable. She challenged the arbitration provision as a whole but did not specifically challenge the delegation clause.
The trial court denied the motion to compel arbitration (no stated reason). Regions appealed. The Alabama Supreme Court reviews denial de novo and reversed, remanding for arbitration.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Who decides gateway questions of arbitrability (court or arbitrator)?	Rice: Court must decide whether her claim is arbitrable and whether the arbitration clause is valid/scope; her challenge to the arbitration provision places arbitrability before the court.	Regions: The contract’s delegation clause clearly and unmistakably assigns threshold arbitrability questions to the arbitrator.	The delegation clause clearly and unmistakably delegates substantive arbitrability to the arbitrator; because Rice did not specifically challenge the delegation clause, the court must enforce it and leave arbitrability questions to the arbitrator.
Whether the delegation provision itself is invalid or unenforceable	Rice: She invalidated the arbitration agreement generally (lack of opportunity to read, incorporation by reference, unconscionability), implying invalidity of delegation too.	Regions: Rent‑A‑Center requires specific challenge to the delegation clause; otherwise the delegation clause is severable and presumptively valid.	Rice did not specifically challenge the delegation provision itself; under Rent‑A‑Center the court must treat the delegation provision as valid and enforce it.

Bennett v. Skinner, 98 So.3d 1140 (Ala. 2012) (standard of review for denial of motion to compel arbitration)
Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. McDonald, 758 So.2d 539 (Ala. 1999) (court decides substantive arbitrability questions)
Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 537 U.S. 79 (2002) (procedural questions presumptively for the arbitrator)
John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Livingston, 376 U.S. 543 (1964) (arbitrator decides procedural prerequisites to arbitration)
Brasfield & Gorrie, L.L.C. v. Soho Partners, L.L.C., 35 So.3d 601 (Ala. 2009) (applying arbitrability principles)
First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938 (1995) (parties may delegate gateway arbitrability questions)
AT&T Techs., Inc. v. Comm’ns Workers of Am., 475 U.S. 643 (1986) (arbitrability questions can be delegated by agreement)
Rent‑A‑Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63 (2010) (delegation clause is severable; specific challenge required to delegation provision)
Federal Ins. Co. v. Reedstrom, 197 So.3d 971 (Ala. 2015) (discussing delegation/enforcement of arbitrability clauses)