D.R. Horton, Inc.-Birmingham v. Carlton, [Ms. SC-2024-0009, Nov. 15, 2024] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. 2024). The Court (Stewart, J.; Wise, Sellers, and Cook, JJ., concur; Parker, C.J., concurs in the result) reverses the Baldwin Circuit Court’s order denying D.R. Horton, Inc.-Birmingham’s motion to compel arbitration of Richard and Kimberly Carltons’ claims alleging negligence, wantonness, breach of contract, and misrepresentation/suppression arising from construction defects in their home purchased from and built by D.R. Horton.
Even though the arbitration provision in the purchase agreement “does not expressly delegate to an arbitrator decision-making authority regarding questions of arbitrability,” it stated that “[t]he proceedings shall be conducted pursuant to the rules of the American Arbitration Association.” Ms. *11. The “AAA rules clearly and unmistakably delegate questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator. Accordingly, the determination of the scope of the arbitration provision is a question for the arbitrator, and the trial court, therefore, erred in denying the motion to stay and to compel arbitration.” Ms. **13-14, citing Bugs “R” Us, LLC v. McCants, 223 So. 3d 913 (Ala. 2016); Wiggins v. Warren Averett, LLC, 307 So. 3d 519, 523 (Ala. 2020), and Managed Health Care Admin., Inc. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Alabama, 249 So. 3d 486, 491-92 (Ala. 2017).
Related Document