*1
Brooke
Plaintiff-Respondent, IDAHO, BLUESHIELD
REGENCE OF
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 31180. Idaho,
Supreme Court of
Boise, April 2006 Term.
July 2006. d’Alene, Lyons, & Coeur
Ramsden argued. pellant. Michael E. Ramsden *2 211 enforceability Chtd., briefing of the arbi- Nye Budge Bailey, & on the Racine Olson Pocatello, respondent. clause, requested supple- Richard A. Hearn for tration argued. briefing regarding the issue of wheth- mental final, originates er from a or not this
TROUT, Justice. judgment under I.A.R. appealable order or enforceability This case involves the of an 11. agreement arbitration under a health care policy. Appellant Regence
insurance Blue II. (Regence) appeals Shield of Idaho from a decision, concluding district court order and STANDARD OF REVIEW disputed agreement unen- appeal, Court must “On address vacating prior forceable and the court’s order finality if fail to raise it even compelling arbitration. jurisdictional.” because the issue is Hart Co., 456, 141 Mfg. man v. Double L I. (2005). 457, 141, disputes 111 142 “In AND FACTUAL PROCEDURAL arbitration, involving court has stated: BACKGROUND arbitrability question question ‘The (Deeds), Respondent Deeds in- Brooke properly law the court. decided When sured, against complaint Regence filed a af- presented, questions of this court law are ” pay ter it for review____’ declined Deeds’ treatment Murphy exercises free v. Mid- injuries for resulting from a motor vehicle Tennessee, West Nat. 139 Ins. Co. of Life accident. complaint, In answer to the Re- (2003) (inter 331 78 P.3d gence demanded the be arbitrated omitted). nal citations pursuant provision the health insur- policy ance that mandates “arbitration ac- III. cordance with the American Arbitration Association [AAA]”. DISCUSSION judge The district agreed stayed principal on are issues proceedings, pending arbitration. Lifting whether the district court’s Order Thereafter, Deeds discovered that after Stay Vacating Partial Arbitration Order written, the health policy insurance was order; appealable is a final implemented policy, declaring arbitration clause in health insurance in health insurance cases “it will no requests is enforceable. Deeds also longer accept the administration of in- eases attorney appeal. fees on volving patients individual without a post- dispute agreement signed by to arbitrate” appealable A. Final order parties. both sign post- Deeds refused to dispute agreement filed a motion to va- states, § in pertinent Idaho Code 7-919 cate the arbitration The district “(a) order. court part, appeal may be taken \a\n from: concluded that based on AAA’s denying application An order compel policy, the entire arbitration 7-919(a)(1).1 By § arbitration....” I.C. en granted failed. It therefore Deeds’ motion § acting legislature, I.C. as a sub arbitrate, ordering and lifted the order to matter, clearly stantive created the matter to trial. denying compel an order motion to Regarding procedure arbitration.
Regence
Appeal
then filed Notice of
however,
bringing
§
appeal,
§
I.C.
to I.C.
7-919 and the matter is
“(b)
specifically
now before us
states:
shall be
without
resolution as
ease.
In
remainder of the
addition to
taken
the manner and to the same extent
effect,
practical
appealable
1.
In
all
district court’s deci-
"Whether an
is an
order
instrument
"ordering]
sion
of this
determined
resolution
matter
must be
content
substance,
proceed through
finding
litigation” and
the arbi-
and not
its title.” Howell v.
unenforceable,
Reimann,
equates
tration clause
to a
77 Idaho
288 P.2d
denial
(1955).
Regence’s application
compel
arbitration.
Bank, N.A.,
Branch,
judgments
Hailey
orders or
in a civil ac-
7-919(b).
turn,
(1978).
1242, 1244
13-
tion.” I.C.
584 P.2d
provides
procedure
appealing
civil
An
compel
order
a motion to
may be
and orders: “An
not meet our Rule 11 re
does
Supreme
Court from a district
*3
by ending
entirety.
quirements
the suit
any
by
court in
parties
civil action
such
Yet,
the
these or
indicated
judgments,
such
such
orders and
and within
may
appealed,
practical
be
and as a
ders
by
times and in
manner
prescribed
such
as
matter,
final
respect
these orders are
with
Supreme
Rule of
Court.”
13-201.
the
arbitration.
not make sense to force
does
Ltd.,
Co.,
Camp
See
v. East Fork Ditch
137
parties
pro
to an arbitration
(“The
Idaho
55 P.3d
314
through
litigation
ceed
to discover later
right
appeal
to this Court
a matter of
as
matter
have been
the
should
arbitrated.
right
governed by
Appellate
is
the Idaho
Thus,
we hold that an order
a mo
Rules.”).
(or here,
compel
tion to
arbitration
an order
Analogous
to the
contained
directives
arbitrate)
vacating an
final
earlier order
legis
§§
in I.C.
and
Idaho
7-919
the
purposes
the
rules and
of our
is therefore
right
lature
from an
created the
right.
appealable as matter of
§ 72-
Industrial
order in I.C.
Commission
and
be
likewise instructed the
Enforceability
arbitration
clause
B.
brought pursuant
Supreme
Court Rules:
Act
may
Supreme
“An
be made to the
Under the Uniform Arbitration
by
parties
agreements
such
from such
and
are
Court
decision
“arbitration and
arbitrate
encouraged
explicit
order of
given
recognition
[Industrial]
the
commission
as
within such times and
manner as
disputed
effective means to resolve
issues.”
prescribed by
Supreme
Idaho,
the
Rule of
Court.”
Regence
Lovey v.
BlueShield
139
Despite
language
in I.C.
72-724 creat
37, 41,
the
(quoting
72
881
P.3d
ing
right
from an Industrial Loomis,
106, 108,
Cudahy,
Inc.
104 Idaho
order,
this Court has held on
Commission
1359, 1361(1982)).
case,
656 P.2d
this
type
numerous
of order is
occasions
this
pol
health
clause in the
insurance
if,
rules,
only appealable
under our
it is final.
as
icy provides
follows:
Mfg.,
L
See Hartman v. Double
ARBITRATION
456, 111
(holding
141
Industrial
Any
arising
out of or
controversy or
order did not constitute a
Commission’s
relating
Policy,
or the
there-
breach
Supreme
appealable order under
of,
in accor-
settled
was, therefore,
appeal
not
Court rules and
applicable
with
dance
rules of
able). Thus,
legislature originally
while
Association and
American Arbitration
right
appeal,
this Court’s
creates
it is
upon
by the
the award rendered
responsibility
proce
to then determine the
may
court
arbitrator
be entered
appeal.
bringing
This determi
dures
jurisdiction
having
thereof. The arbitra-
finality of a
ruling
nation
on the
includes
place may be
tion shall be held at such
as
particular judgment or order.
agreement. All fees
mutual
selected
rules,
in a
“[a]n
Under our
civil action
expenses of the arbitration shall
may
as
be taken
a matter
However,
equally.
parties
borne
Supreme
[judgments,
from ...
Court
proceeding
party to the arbitration
each
final, including
which
orders and decrees
are
counsel,
expenses of its
shall bear the
own
deny-
granting
court
the district
witnesses,
preparation and
experts,
prohi-
ing
writs of mandate and
peremptory
(emphasis
proofs,
presentation of
11(a)(1).
has held
bition.” I.A.R.
This Court
AAA will
its new
Because under
11 “if the
an order
final under I.A.R.
designate
AAA arbitrator to adminis-
suit,’
‘adjudicate(s)
instrument ‘ends
agree-
dispute
post-dispute
ter the
without
rep-
subject
controversy,’
matter of
arbitrate,
claims the entire
ment to
Deeds
rights
resents
‘final determination of
no
Best,
sees
fails.
Court
parties’____” Idah
Inc. v. First Sec.
arbitration clause
reason, however, why
implementation
the arbitration cannot
their
SRO must
. . . . Each
proceed “in
accordance
comply
provisions
with the
Ex-
rules____”
using
rules of the AAA”
a different arbitra-
change Act well
as its own
exception
tor.
setting
With
forth the Alan,
Cal.App.4th
Cal.Rptr.3d
at
appoint
designated
method for
(quoting Mayo
Reyn-
at 382
v. Dean Witter
arbitrator,
governing
the AAA rules
olds, Inc.,
F.Supp.2d
simple
are
procedural rules of
(N.D.Cal.2003)).
general applicability.
example,
For
the rules
SROs,
In contrast
which are
filing
sets forth time frames for
various docu-
closely governed by
ments,
Ex
Securities and
manner which the final award
developed
will be
Commission and have
com
generic evidentiary
delivered and
guidelines, giving
plex regulatory
the arbitrator
overseeing
broad discre-
schemes for
arbi
*4
tion to allow in evidence. There is no reason
disputes,
simply
tration of securities
the AAA
only
AAA
arbitrator
comply
could
with
provides
potential
a list of
arbitrators from
procedures.
these basic
choose,
parties
which the
can
as well as
procedural
conducting
rules for
the arbitra
addition, there is no evidence the
In
tion,
logistics
and coordinates
setting
of
AAA itself is central
agreement
up
parties
with the chosen arbitrator.
“Only
arbitrate.
if the choice of forum is an
Here,
argued
no one has
the dominant intent
integral part
agreement
arbitrate,
of the
of the
that
was
an AAA arbitra
‘ancillary logistical
rather than an
concern’
tor
could handle the
or that an AAA
will the failure of the
preclude
chosen forum
arbitrator, or the AAA
organization,
as an
arbitration.” Brown v. ITT Consumer Fi
(11th Cir.2000). has
Corp.,
type
special expertise.
nancial
some
F.3d 1217
Unlike
SROs,
misguidedly
Deeds
directs
this Court to case
arbitration “in accordance with the
law in which the courts held selection of
depen
rules of the AAA” is not
forum
parties’
was central to
agreement
dent on
AAA overseeing
the arbitration.
and, therefore,
to arbitrate
refusal
only provision
of these rules that
organization to hear the ease rendered the
fails
appointing
is the method for
an arbitra
agreement
unenforceable. See In
tor
provide
because the AAA rules
for the
Inc.,
(2nd
re
Cir.1995);
Salomon
Exchange Act directs adopt SROs to rules longer followed, arbitrator can by-laws no that conform we re- with the Ex- Act____With mand the case exceptions appoint some ... to the trial court to approve rules, the SEC must all poli- SRO another arbitrator to I.C. cies, practices, and interpretations prior to proceed who shall with the arbitration in overruling a motion to governing vacate accordance with receivership, aside the and authoriz- arbitration. and set directing ing property. the sale of the Attorney fees C. held that it could not because the This Court right to ap- had not conferred requests attorney on Deeds fees pursuant to peal orders § 12-121. 41-1839 and under I.C. system of “provide proper attorney provides § 41-1839 for the award V, 3,§ of the Idaho peals” under Article pay fails to company fees if the insurance holding, In so Court stat- Constitution. justly policy within amount due under the ed: Here, days proof after al- thirty of loss. state, brought in court
though
appeal,
an action
been
in this
is
by legislative authority,
under the
of the insurance
to recover
terms
it
if
conferred
exists it
been
policy, there has
no determination
must be
the Constitution
found
amount,
any,
justly
if
under the
due
what
contended
all
or statutes.
has been
of this
policy. Because
substantive
of district courts are
decisions
Deeds,
i.e.,
if
dispute,
the amount owed
appealable by
art.
made
section
resolved,
any, under the
has not been
Constitution,
wherein
attorney
award
fees under I.C.
we decline to
jurisdiction
Supreme Court shall have
addition,
we find no
§ 41-1839.
because
review,
upon appeal, any decision
*5
Regence
unreason-
that
has acted
evidence
thereof,
courts,
judges
but
or the
district
ably
proceedings, Deeds is not enti-
in these
must
and
this section
be read
considered
§ 12-121.
attorney fees
tled to
under
together
13 of the same arti-
with section
cle, directing
Legislature shall
IV.
appeals.
In
provide
proper system
a
of
discharge
duty imposed upon
of
CONCLUSION
13,
Constitution,
5,
art.
of the
section
reverse the district court decision
We
mentioned,
Legislature,
in
sec-
above
to
court to
the case
the district
remand
4800, Rev.Codes,
provided:
tion
to I.C.
point another arbitrator
order,
action,
or
in a civil
judgment
“A
7-903,
proceed
the arbitra-
who shall
final, may
except
expressly
when
made
gov-
the AAA rules
tion in accordance with
Code,
in
prescribed
as
be reviewed
costs on
erning the arbitration. We award
and not otherwise.”
Regence.
appeal to
4807, Rev.Codes,
amended
Section
367,
111,
1911, p.
Sess. Laws
chapter
concurs.
Justice BURDICK
1915,
p.
by chapter
Laws
Sess.
EISMANN, concurring
part
in
Justice
of
and orders
dis-
designate
concurring
part.
in the result in
may
appeals
from
be
trict courts
which
III.C,
II, III.B,
I,
in Parts
I concur
court,
A
they are:
final
to this
taken
III.A.
in the
in Part
I concur
result
IV.
special proceed-
in an action or
judgment
in which the
majority opinion
eviscer-
in the court
ing
Part III.A. of
commenced
rendered;
a
“provide
to
rendered on
legislature’s power
judgment
a
ates
same is
V,
court;
Article
appeals”
judgment
under
system of
a
proper
appeal from an inferior
order,
This Court
Idaho
Constitution.
an
deci-
appeal
on an
from
rendered
recognized
legisla-
previously
county
sion,
of
of
com-
or action
a board
provi-
power under this constitutional
ture’s
missioners;
refusing
or
granting
an order
right
to determine
includes
sion
trial;
granting or
an order
grant
to
new
immediately from deci-
appeals can be
injunction;
refusing
order
dissolving an
an
yet
final.
that are
sions
an
injunction;
or-
grant or dissolve an
to
an
dissolving
refusing
to dissolve
der
Skeen,
30
Evans State Bank v.
In
attachment;
refusing
granting
an
order
(1917),
703, 167
addressed
P. 1165
this Court
trial;
place
of
grant a
of
to
be taken
appeal
could
issue of whether
judgment;
made after
special order
appointing
interlocutory orders
directly from
in actions
interlocutory judgment
property,
and an
personal
mortgaged
a receiver
DeBoard,
In
94 Idaho
partition
property.
of real
While
Wilson v.
other
(1972),
legislative
provide
that an
appeals
enactments
P.2d 566
this Court held
to
appeal
the district courts
this court in
could not
taken from an order
from
cases,
apply
certain
them
denying summary judgment
leg-
none
to the
because the
question here under consideration.
appeal
islature
for an
from
had not
interlocutory
the exercise of its
order
(em-
Court legislature (1972), that the again recognized P.2d 305 power grant right has the legislative to an grant right imme- interlocutory diate from an order. order. The dismissing Oneida, because the parties were all shareholders of Inc. granted had not litigation from an The central issue in the was wheth- sustaining demurrer, order this Court stat- er it economically was feasible to divide the ed: *6 of corporation among parties. assets the the not, 5, After the Section district court ruled was part pro- 13 of Article in ‘ * * * plaintiffs appealed. legislature provided
vides: but the A pro- statute for * * appeal interlocutory an proper system appeals, judgment vide of from an *.’ By provisions Chapter an action partition property, to real but Title not I.C., legislature provided, has from an interlocutory judgment in an action constitution, to the mandate of the to prop- corporation. divide the assets of a system er appeals from appeal the district Court therefore dismissed the be- supreme courts to the court. cause legislature provided not for an appeal interlocutory immediate from the or- appeal Where no direct an inter- from at doing, der issue. In so provided mediate stated: by legis- decision is lature, such only decision reviewable appellants seeking partition to were upon appeal judgment. personal- the assets —both real and from final —of The failure of legislature provide for Oneida, corporation known as Inc. This is appeal decision, direct such from is not not partition an action of real property’ ‘for of, a denial upon, jurisdic- or limitation within meaning of I.C. s If 13-201. supreme tion of the court to review such any may applied, label be this is an action upon appeal. recognition decision It is a partition to dissolve and the assets of a by legislature aof truism inherent in a corporation. legislature While the proper system namely, appeals; per- appeal a direct an inter for from mit appeal an from all intermediate orders locutory judgment parti an action for and decisions of district courts would property, provided, tion real it has not result in such vexatious and intolerable appeal a direct an intermediate from delay confusion and as to impossi- render partition decision in an action cor orderly expeditious ble an administra- porate 13-201. assets. I.C. s The district justice by tion of the courts of the state. court’s order is an intermediate order re 80 Idaho at at (empha- only upon appeal 328 P.2d 581-82 viewable from the final added). sis judgment. appeal judgments from or (emphasis
entered post-disputed agreement into a
arbitrate. Mr. Meade’s affidavit discloses conformity inbe with the 1998
report of the Commission on Care Health
Disputes,
part:
which
PRINCIPLE 3: KNOWING AND VOL- Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, STATE of UNTARY AGREEMENT TO ADR USE to use ADR should be knowing voluntary. Consent to use WATKINS, Party Scott Real process ADR requirement should be a Interest-Appellant. for receiving emergency care or treatment. *8 No. 31700. In disputes involving patients, binding forms of dispute resolution should be used Idaho, Supreme Court of parties agree where the to do after so Boise, April 2006 Term. arises. July 2006. Whether one calls AAA’s arbi- refusal to trate, without a voluntary agree- post-dispute ment, rule, policy, principle, clear it is the AAA will not arbitrate a care health dispute involving an patient individual unless parties voluntarily enter into
agreement. This is more than a forum
arbitrator selection clause. It is a determina-
tion the AAA that it will get involved type of this care health