FI FTH DI VI SI ON

M CFA DDEN, P. J.

, BRA NCH and BETHEL, JJ.

N O T IC E : M otions for r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be

p h y sic a l ly r e ce iv ed i n our c le r k ’s offic e w ithin te n

da y s of the da te of de c is ion to be de e m ed tim e ly file d.

http://w w w .ga a ppe a l s .us /r ule s

October 4, 2017



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A1 7 A1 28 1 . W A FFLE HOUSE, INC. v . PAVESI.

B E T H E L , J u d g e.

W affl e Ho u s e, In c. bri n g s t h i s in t erl ocu t o ry ap peal fro m t h e t ri al co urt ’ s d en i al

o f i t s m o ti o n t o co m

p el arb it rat i o n

. Becau s e t h e t ri al co urt erred i n det erm in i n g t h at

t h e rel ev an t arb i t rat i o n ag reem en t di d n o t req u i re arb i t rat i o n o f t h e un d erl y i n g cl ai m s

i n t hi s cas e, we rev ers e.

“ T h e st an d ard o f rev i ew fro m t h e d en i al o f a m o t i o n t o co m p el arb i t rat i o n i s

wh et h er t h e t ri al co u rt was co rrect as a m at t er of l aw.” D

. S

. Amer i Co n s tr

. Co r p

. v.

S i mp s o n

, 2 7 1 Ga. Ap p. 8 2 5

, 8 2 6 ( 6 1 1 S E 2 d 1 0 3) (2 0 05 ) (fo o tn o te o m i t t ed ).

M o reo v er, as t h i s cas e i nv o l v es t h e i n terp ret at i o n o f an ag r e e m e n t b e t ween t h ep art i es

, we n o t e t h at “ t h e co n s t ru ct i o n o f a co nt ract is a m a t t e r o f l aw fo r t h e co u rt

t h at i s s u b

ject t o d e n o v o rev i ew.” Id

.

Th i s ap p eal ari ses fro m a l aws u i t fi l ed ag ai n s t W affl e Ho u s e by Pam el a Pav es i

,

t h e co u rt -ap p o i n t ed g u ard i an an d cu s t o d i an of Bri an M i k eal s

. Th e reco rd b efo re us 1

i n d i cat es t h at i n J u l y 2 0 1 0

, M i k ael s beg an w o rk i n g at a W affl e Ho u s e res t au ran t

wh i ch was t h en ru n b y a fran ch i s ee o f W affl e Ho us e. In Oct o b er 2 0 1 5

, t he res t au ran t

wh ere M ik ael s wo rk ed was re-p u rch as ed fro m t he fran ch i s ee b y W affl e Ho u s e. T h at

d a y, al l em

p l o y ees o f t hat res t au ran t

, i ncl u d in g M i k ael s

, were n o t i fi ed t h at t h ei r

em pl o y m en t wi t h t h e fran ch is ee h ad en d ed an d t h at t h ey had been hi red b y W affl e

Ho u s e o n a p ro b at i o n ary

b as i s . M i k ael s an d t h e o t h er em p lo y ees were al s o n o t i fi ed

1 Becau s e o ur r e v i e w o f t h i s cas e i s l i m i t ed t o d et erm i n i ng wh et h er t h e

u n d erl y i n g al l eg at i o n s are s u bject t o arb i t rat io n p u rs u an t t o t h e ag reem en t s en t ered

i n t o b y M i k ael s a n d Wa ffl e Ho u s e, we es sen t i al l y t reat th e al leg at i on s of Pav es i ’ s

co m p l ai n t as t ru e. S

ee B el l S o ut h Co rp

. v. Fo rs ee

, 2 6 5 G a. Ap p

. 58 9

, 5 9 1 (5 9 5 SE2 d

9 9 ) (2 0 0 4 ) (“ [A] co u rt co n s i d eri n g arb i t rab i l i t y i s n o t t o ru l e o n t he p ot en t i al m eri t s

o f t h e u n d erl y in g cl ai m s .” (ci t at io n an d pu n ct uat i o n o m i t t ed )). Becau s e t h e

al l eg at i o n s set fo rt h in t h e co m p lai n t d o n o t ad d res s t h e arb it rat i o n ag reem en t s

en t ered i n to b y Mi k ael s an d W affl e Ho u s e, we m u s t a l s o n e c es sari l y co n s i d er

ev i d en ce an d d ocu m en t s o u ts i d e t h e p l ead i n g s

. Th u s, i n l i gh t o f t he n eed fo r t h e

p a r t i es t o es t ab l i s h i n th e reco rd t h e t erm s an d co n d i t i o n s o f M i k ael s ’ em p l o ym e n t

an d th e p ro c e s s b y w h i ch h e was h i red

, i n cl u d i n g th e t erm s of th e arb i t rat i o n

ag reem en t s h e en t ered i n t o wi t h W affl e H o u se, we h av e al s o co n s i d ered t h e ev i d en ce

ad d uced th ro u g h t h e li m it ed d i s co v ery o rd ered b y t he t ri al co u rt fo r s u ch p u rp o s es as

wel l as u n d i s p u t ed rep res en t at i o n s reg ard i ng t he fact s an d ci rcu m s t an ces o f t h i s cas e

m ad e b y co u n s el o n t h e reco rd b efo re t h e t ri al co u rt

.

2t h at i n o rd er to obta in r e gula r, n o n -p ro b at i on ary em

p l o y m en t wi th W affl e H o u s e, t h ey

wo u l d b e req ui red t o re-ap p l y fo r em p l o y m en t an d co m

p let e an d ag ree t o t h e t erm s

o f a v ari et y o f d o cu m en t s

, in cl u d i n g an arb i t rat i o n ag reem en t

. Mi k ael s co m p l et ed an d

s u b m i t t ed an el ect ro n ic v ers io n o f t h e d o cu m en ts

, wh i c h i n c l u d ed h i s as s en t t o t h e

arb i t rat i on ag reem en t , o n No v em b er 6

, 2 0 1 5

.

At t h e t i m e, W affl e Ho u s e’ s el ect ro n i c d o cu m en t s y st em was en co u n t eri n g a

n u m b er of d i ffi cu l t i es su ch th at W affl e Ho us e co u ld n o t co n t em p o ran eo u s ly co n fi rm

t h at M i k ael s an d o t h ers had co m p l et ed t h e el ect ro ni c p a p e r wo rk

, i n cl u d i n g t h ei r

as s en t t o t h e arb i t rat i o n ag reem en t

. 2 As a res ul t

, Mi k ael s an d o t h e r s w e r e as k ed to

co m p l et e an d s i g n p ap er v e r s i o n s o f em p l o y m en t ap p l i cat i on m at eri al s

, wh i ch

i n cl u d ed an arb i trat io n ag reem en t . M i k ael s d i d s o o n No v em ber 1 4 , 2 0 1 5

.

On Decem

b er 23

, 2 0 1 5, wh i l e at w o rk

, o n e of M i kael s ’ co -wo rk ers pl aced an

i l leg al s u b s t an ce in h i s d ri n k wh i ch cau s ed h im to s u ffer s ev ere i n ju ri es

. Pav es i

, h i s

2 Tes t i m o n y b y a wi t n es s rep res en t i n g W affl e Ho u s e i n d i cat es t h at

, at t h e t i m e

W affl e Ho u s e ex p eri e n c e d t h es e d i ffi cu l t i es w i t h i t s s y s t em s

, M i k ael s h ad act u al l y

co m p l et ed al l n eces s ary ap p l i cat i o n s an d d o cu m en t s e l e c t ro ni cal l y

, i ncl u d i n g t h e

m an d at o ry arb i trat io n ag reem en t

. Th i s was d et erm i n ed aft er W affl e Ho u s e’ s

el ect ro ni c ap p l i cat i on s y s t em was “ co rrect ed .” Tes t i m on y fro m W affl e Ho us e’ s ch i ef

t ech n o l o g y offi cer co n fi rm ed t h at M i k ael s ’ el ect ro n i c ap p l i cat i o n an d t h e

acco m pan y i n g d o cu m en t s

, in cl u d i n g t h e arb i trat i o n ag reem en t, were co m p l et ed an d

s u b m i t t ed el ect ro n i cal l y

o n No v em

b er 6 , 2 0 15

.

3co u rt -ap p o i n t ed g u ard i an an d c u s t o d ian

, b ro u g h t s u i t o n M i k ael s ’ b eh al f ag ai n s t

W affl e Ho u s e al l eg i n g cl ai m s fo r n eg l i g en t h i r i ng

, s u perv i si o n

, an d ret en t i o n o f

M i k ael s ’ co -wo rk er wh o at tack ed h i m

. Pav es i ’ s l aws u i t a l s o al l eg ed t h at W affl e

Ho u s e had been n eg l i g en t in i t s t rai n i n g o f i t s em p l oy ees an d m an ag ers an d t hat i t h ad

n eg li g en t l y fai l ed t o k eep t h e wo rk p rem i s es s afe. Pav es i ’ s s u i t so u gh t d am ag es an d

d em an d ed a ju ry

t ri al

.

W affl e Ho u s e an s w ered t h e co m p l ai n t an d fi l ed an em erg en c y m o t i o n to

co m p el arb i t rat i o n

. In s u p po rt o f i t s m o t i o n

, W affl e Ho u s e arg u ed t h at t h e arb i t rat i o n

ag reem en t s s ig n ed b y M i k ael s o n N o v em b er 6 an d No v em

ber 1 4 req u i red t h e cl ai m s

al l eg ed i n Pav es i ’ s s u it t o b e h an d l ed t hro u g h m an d at o ry b i n d i n g arb i t rat i o n

.

Fo l l owi n g a h eari ng

, t he t ri al co u rt den i ed t h i s m o t i o n

. I n i t s ru l i n g

, t h e t ri al

co u rt fo u n d th at t h e No v em ber 1 4 ag reem en t s u pers ed ed t h e No v em ber 6 ag reem en t

b ecau s e t h e t wo ag reem en t s co n t ai n ed m at eri al l y d ifferen t t erm s wh i l e ad d res s i n g t h e

s am e s u b ject m at t er. Sp eci fi cal l y

, t h e t ri al co u rt n o ted t hat t he “ c h o i ce o f l aw”

p ro v is i o n s i n t h e t wo ag reem en t s were m at eri al l y d i fferen t

.

Th e No v em

ber 6 ag reem en t co n t ai n ed a cl au s e p ro v i d i n g t h at “ [t ] h i s

Arb it rat io n Pro g ram s h al l b e g o v ern ed b y an d in t erp ret ed in acco rd an c e w i t h t h e

Fed eral A rb i t rat i o n Act an d an y fed eral co m m on l aw in t erp ret in g t h at Act .” In

4co n t r as t

, t h e No v em b er 1 4 ag reem en t co nt ai n ed a cl au s e p ro v i d i n g t h at t h e

“ ag reem en t sh o u ld b e co ns t ru ed i n a m a n n e r co n s i s t en t wi t h t h e p ri n ci pl es an d

p ro v is i o n s o f t h e Fed eral Arb it rat i o n A ct

. . . [T] h is Ag reem en t s h al l b e g ov ern ed by

an d i n terp ret ed i n acco rd an ce wi t h t h e l aws o f t h e St at e o f Geo rg i a[.] ”

Th e No vem

b er 1 4 ag reem en t al s o p ro v i d ed th at i t w a s t o ap p l y t o cl ai m s

“ ari s i n g o u t o f an y as p ect o f o r p ert ai n in g i n an y way to [M ik ael s ’ ] em p l o y m en t[.] ”

Th e ag reem en t fu rt h er p ro v i d ed t h at “ cl ai m s t hat are arb i t rab le

. . . i n c l u d e

, b u t are

n o t l i m it ed t o

. . . t o rt cl ai m s [.] ” Th e No v em b er 1 4 ag reem en t al s o co n t ai n ed a m erg er

cl au s e, i n d i cat i n g t h at i t was t h e “ co m p l et e ag reem en t o f [M ik ael s an d W affl e Ho u s e]

o n t h e s ub

j ect o f arb it rat i on d i sp u t es [.] ”

In t erp ret i n g th e ch oi ce o f l aw p ro v is i o n in t h e No v em b er 1 4 a g r e e m e n t

, t h e

t ri al co u rt d et erm i n ed t h at b y p r o v i d i n g t h at t h e ag reem en t w as t o b e “ go v ern ed by

an d i nt erp ret ed in acco rd an ce wi t h t h e l aws o f th e St at e o f Geo rg i a,” t h e p art i es h ad

ag reed th at an y arb i t rat i o n o f M i k ael s ’ cl ai m s ag ai ns t W affl e H ou s e was g o v ern ed by

Geo rg i a l aw, an d t h at acco rd i ng l y t h e G eo rg i a Arb i t rat i o n Co d e, n ot t h e F e d e ral

Arb it rat io n Act

, wo ul d ap pl y

. Fu rt h er, t h e t ri al co u rt d et erm i n e d t h at b ecau s e t h e

Geo rg i a Arb it rat i o n Co d e h ad b een i n t erp ret ed t o ex cl u d e p ers o n al b o d i l y i n ju ry

cl ai m s fro m i t s co v erag e, M i k a e l s co u l d n o t b e co m p el l ed t o arb i t rat e h i s cl ai m s

5ag ai n s t W affl e Ho us e p u rs u an t t o t h e No v em b er 1 4 ag reem en t

. Th e t ri al co u rt fu rt h er

ru l ed t h at M i k ael s ’ cl ai m s were n o t s u b ject t o m an dat o ry arb i t rat i o n b ecau s e h i s

i n ju ri es were no t th e res u l t o f h i s em p l o y m en t rel at i o n sh i p wi t h W affl e Ho u s e, an d

were t h u s n o t co v ered b y t h e No v em

b er 1 4 ag reem en t.

Fo l l owi n g i t s o rd er, t h e t ri al co urt fi l ed a c e r t i f i c a t e o f i m

m ed i at e rev i ew

au t h o ri zi n g W affl e Ho u s e to seek an i n t erl o cu t o ry ap p eal

. Wa ffl e Ho u s e fi l ed an

ap p li cat io n s e e k i n g s u ch rev i ew wi t h t h is Co u rt

, wh i ch we g ran t ed

. 3 Th i s ap p eal

fo l l o w ed

.

1

. W affl e Ho u s e fi rs t arg u es t h at t h e t ri al co u rt e r r e d b y fi n d i ng t h at t h e

No v em b er 6 an d No v em

b er 1 4 ag reem en t s co n t ai n ed m at eri al l y d i fferen t term s

, s u ch

t h at t h e ag reem en t s m erg ed

, wi t h t h e t erm s o f th e No v em b er 14 ag reem en t

co n tro l l in g . W e fi n d n o erro r i n t he t ri al co urt ’ s d et erm i n at i on

.

I n t h i s cas e, t he No v em b er 6 an d No v em

ber 1 4 ag reem en t s cl earl y d ea l t

co m p reh en s i v e l y wi t h t h e s am e s u bject m at t er— t he ci rcu m s t an ces an d co n d i t i on s

u n d er w h i ch cl ai m s bet ween M i k ael s an d W affl e Ho u s e w o u l d b e s u b ject to

arb i t rat i on

. Becau s e th e t wo ag reem en ts had d i fferen t t erm s , t h e ag reem en t en t ered

i n t o la t er in t i m e co n t ro l s

. See At l a n t a In t eg r i t y M o r tg

., In c. v. Ben Hi l l Un i t ed

3 S ee Cas e n u m

b er A1 7 I0 1 2 8

.

6Met ho d i s t Ch u r ch

, In c.

, 2 86 G a. Ap p

. 7 9 5

, 7 9 7 (6 5 0 SE2 d 35 9 ) (2 00 7 ) (“ Un d er t h e

m erg er ru l e, an ex i s t i n g co n t ract i s s u p ers ed ed an d d i s ch arg ed wh en ev er t h e p art i es

s u b s eq u en t l y en t er u p o n a v al i d an d in co n s is ten t ag reem en t co m p l et el y co v eri n g t h e

s u b ject -m at t er em

braced b y t h e o ri g i nal co n t ract .” (ci t at io n an d p u n ct u at i o n

o m it t ed )). Mo reo v er, t h ro u g h t h e m erg er cl au s e i n t h e No vem b er 1 4 ag reem en t

,

p ro v id i n g th at i t co nt ai n ed t h e “ co m p l et e ag reem en t o f [M i k ael s an d W affl e Ho u s e]

o n th e s u b

ject o f arb i t rat i o n di sp u t e s

, ” t h e p art i es ex p res s ed t h ei r i n t en t i o n t h at t h e

No v em b er 1 4 ag reem en t w o u l d s u p ers ed e an d rep l ace an y p ri o r ag reem en t s o n t h at

s u b ject m at t er. S

ee MAPEI Co r

p

. v. P r o s ser

, 3 28 Ga. Ap p

. 8 1

, 8 6 (4 ) (7 6 1 SE2 d 5 0 0 )

(2 0 1 4). T h u s, t h e t ri al co u rt was co rrect i n det erm i n in g t h at t he p ro v is i on s o f t h e

No v em b er 1 4 ag reem en t s u pers ed ed t h os e o f t h e No v em b er 6 ag reem en t

.

2

. W affl e Ho u s e n ex t arg u es t h at th e t ri al co urt erred wh en i t d et erm i n ed t h at

t h e c h o i c e -o f-l aw p ro v i s i on i n t h e No v em b er 14 ag reem en t d i d n o t req u i re

ap p li cat io n o f t h e Fed eral Arb i trat i o n Act (“ FAA”) t o t h e p art i es ’ d i sp u t e. W e ag ree

wi t h W affl e Ho us e.

Th e ch o i ce-o f-l aw p ro v i s i o n i n t h e No vem b er 1 4 ag reem en t p ro vi d es

, in

rel ev an t p art

, t h a t “ t h i s ag reem en t s h o u l d b e co ns t ru ed i n a m an n er co n s is t en t wi th

t h e p ri n ci p l es an d p ro v i s i o n s of t h e Fed er a l Ar b i t r at i o n Act

. . . [T] h is A g reem en t

7s h al l be g o v e r n e d by an d i n t erp ret ed i n acco rd an ce wi t h t h e l aws o f th e St at e o f

Geo rg i a[.] ” O n t h e b a s i s o f t h i s l an g u ag e, th e tri al co u rt d et erm i n ed t h at t h e

p ro v is i o n s o f Geo rg i a law (an d t h u s

, t h e p ro vi s i o n s o f th e Geo rg i a Arb i t rat i o n Co d e)

g o v ern t h e ag reem en t an d t h at t h e FAA wo u l d n o t ap pl y t o t h e p art i es ’ d i s p ut e. Th i s

was i n erro r.

Th e t ri al co u rt ’ s read i n g o f the c h oic e

- o f

- la w p ro v i s io n v i o l at es a co re p ri n ci p l e

o f co n t ract u al i n t erp ret at i on i n t h at i t ren d ers t h e p ro v i s io n ’ s ex p res s referen ce t o t h e

FAA s u rp l u s ag e. A s t he Gen eral A s s em b ly h as in s t ru ct ed wi t h reg ard to co n t ract

i n t erp ret at io n

, “ [t ] h e co n s t ru ct io n wh i ch wi l l u p h o l d a co n t ract i n w h o le an d i n ev ery

p art i s to b e p referred [.] ” OCGA § 1 3 -2 -2 (4 ). M oreo v er, “ i t i s a card i n al ru l e o f

co n tract co n s t ru ct i o n t h at a co u rt s h o u l d

, i f po s s i b l e, co n s t ru e a co n t ract s o as n o t to

ren d er an y o f i t s p ro v is i on s m ean i n g l es s an d i n a m an ner t h at g i v es effect t o al l o f t h e

co n tract ual t erm s .” F

o r s yt h Ct y. v. W at er s ca p e S er v., LLC

, 3 0 3 Ga. Ap p

. 6 2 3

, 6 3 1 (2 )

(a) (6 94 SE2 d 1 02 ) (2 0 1 0 ) (ci t at i o n o m i t t ed ).

In t h i s cas e, i t s t rai n s cred u l i t y t o b el i ev e t hat t h e p art ies ’ ex p res s referen ce to

t h e FAA i n t he ch o i ce-o f-l aw p ro v i s i o n ev i nced so m et h i n g o t her t h an th ei r in t en t i o n

8t h at th e FAA g o v e r n an y arb i t rat i o n p ro ceed i ng s b et ween t h em

. 4 M o reo v er, t h e

p ro v is i o n ’ s referen ce t o Geo rg i a l aw d o es n o t req u ire a di fferen t co n cl u s i o n

. As t h i s

Co u rt h as p rev i o u s ly d i s cu s s ed “ ev en wh en t h ere is a ch o i ce o f l aw pro v i si o n

, i f t h e

i n t en t o f t h e p art i es i n d i c a t e s t h at arb i t rat i o n wo ul d b e g ov ern ed by th e FAA, t h i s

Co u rt wi l l en fo rce t h e i n t en ti o n s o f t h e p art i es .” Res u l t s Or i en t ed

, In c. v. Cr a wf

o r d

,

2 4 5 Ga. Ap p

. 4 3 2

, 4 3 6

- 3 7 ( 1 ) (a) (5 3 8 SE2 d 7 3 ) (2 00 0 ) (ci t at i o n o m i t t ed ). In

Cr a wf o r d

, t h e arb it rat i o n ag reem en t at i s s u e co n t ai n ed s ep arat e cl au s es t h at p ro v i d ed

b o t h t h at t h e ag reem en t was t o “ g o v ern ed by t he Fed eral Arb i t rat i o n Act ” an d t h at i t

was t o b e “ g ov ern ed b y t h e l aws o f t h e St at e o f Al ab am a.” Id

. at 4 3 5 -3 6. Ev en wi th

t h e pres en ce o f a cl au s e p ro v i d in g fo r a g o vern i n g s t at e l aw, t hi s Co u rt h el d t h at t h e

ag reem en t at i s s u e “ wi t h o u t q ues t i o n i n v o k es bo t h t h e s u b st an t i v e l aw an d p ro ced u re

o f t h e FAA.” Id

. at 4 3 7 (1 ) (a); s e e a l s o Pr i mer i ca Fi n

. S

er v., In c. v. W

i s e

, 2 1 7 Ga.

Ap p

. 3 6

, 3 6 -3 7 (1 ) (4 5 6 SE2 d 6 3 1) (1 9 9 5 ) (“ [N] o t w i t h s t an d in g a ch o i ce o f laws

p ro v is i o n s t at i n g Geo rg i a l a w s h a l l g o v ern t he ag reem en t

, t h e arb i trat i o n cl au s e in

t h i s cas e m ak es t wo ex p res s referen ces to t h e FAA

. . . It i s cl ear fro m t h e fo reg o i n g

4 In arg u i n g fo r a d i fferen t r e s u l t, Pav es i p o i n t s th i s Co u rt t o t h e d i s t i n ct i v e

l an g u ag e i n t h e ch o i ce o f l aw p ro v i s i o n wh i ch p ro v id es t h at th e FAA “ s h o u l d ” ap p l y

t o t h e ag reem en t wh ereas Geo rg i a law “ s h al l ” ap p l y

. W e c a n d i scern n o wo rk ab l e

d i s t i n ct i o n b et ween t h es e t erm s

, as “ s h o u l d ” an d “ s h al l ” i n t h i s co nt ex t are bo t h u s ed

as p res cri p t i v e t erm s t h at i n s tru ct o r s et fo rt h s om e fo rm o f o b l i g at i on

.

9p ro v is i o n s t h at t h e i n t en t i o n s o f t h e p art ies were th at arb i t rat i on wo u ld b e g o v ern ed

b y t h e FAA.”)

As we h av e n o t ed i n o th er i n s t an ces

, t h e referen ce t o a g o v ern i n g s t at e l aw in

an arb i t rat i on ag reem en t cal l i ng fo r ap p l i cat i o n o f t h e FAA i s n o t su rp l u s ag e. Gen eral

p ri n ci p l es o f co n t ract law g o vern t h e fo rm at i o n

, i n t erp ret at i o n

, an d en fo rceab i l i t y o f

arb i t rat i on ag reem en t s

, an d wh et h er t h ere i s a v al i d ag reem en t t o arb i t rat e is g en eral l y

g o v ern ed b y s t at e law. Tr i a d Hea l t h Mg mt

. o f G a

., III, LLC, v. Jo h n s o n

, 2 9 8 Ga. Ap p.

2 0 4

, 20 6 (2 ) (6 7 9 SE2 d 7 8 5) (2 0 0 9 ) (ci t at i o n s o m i t t ed ). M o reo v er, as Pav es i

co n ced ed at o ral arg um en t

, Geo rg i a l aw p erm i t s p art i es t o ag ree t o a r b i t r a t e cl ai m s

b et ween t h em an d ex p r e s s l y p e r m it s th em t o el ect t h at s u ch arb i t rat i o n wi l l b e

g o v ern ed b y t h e FAA. S

ee Pr i mer i ca

, 2 1 7 G a. Ap p

. at 3 6 -3 7 (1 ). W e th u s ag ree wi th

W affl e Ho u s e th at t h e FAA g o v ern s a n y a r b i t rat i on o f cl ai m s co v ered b y t h e

No v em b er 1 4 ag reem en t

. 5

5 Becau s e w e det erm i n e t h at t he No v em b er 1 4 ag r e e m e n t p ro vi d es t h at t h e

FAA g ov ern s an y arb i t rat i o n b et ween W affl e Ho u s e an d M ik ael s ari si n g u n d er t h at

ag reem en t

, we n eed n o t ad d res s wh et h er M i kael s ’ cl ai m s s p eci fi ed i n t h e un d erl y i n g

l a w s u i t are arb i t rab l e un d er t h e Geo rg i a Arb i trat i o n Co de. M oreo v er, b ec a u s e

Geo rg i a l aw p erm i t s p art i es t o an ag reem en t t o el ect t o b e g o vern ed b y th e FAA, we

n eed n o t en g ag e i n t h e co ns t ru ct i o n o f fed eral l aw t o ad dres s an y i s s u es rel at i n g to

p reem pt i o n o f t h e Geo rg i a Arb i t rat i o n Co d e b y t h e FAA.

103

. W affl e H o u s e n ex t arg u es t h at t h e t ri al co urt erred i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h at

M i k ael s ’ cl ai m s fel l o u t s i d e t h e s co p e o f th e No v em b er 14 ag reem en t

. W e ag ree wi th

W affl e Ho us e.

Th e No v em

b er 1 4 ag reem en t p ro v i d ed t hat i t was t o ap pl y t o cl ai m s “ ari s i n g

o u t o f an y as p ect o f o r p ert ai n i n g in an y way t o [M i k a e l s ’] e m pl o y m en t [.] ” Th e

ag reem en t fu rt h er p ro vi d es th at “ cl ai m s t h at are arb it rab l e

. . . i n cl u de, b u t are n ot

l i m i ted t o

. . . t o rt cl ai m s[.] ” T h e ex pan s i ve l an g u ag e o f t hi s p ro vi s i o n s u g g es t s t h at

t h e part ies i n ten d ed t o i n cl u d e wi t h i n t h e co v erag e o f t h i s ag reem en t an y cl ai m

M i k ael s h ad ag ai n st W affl e Ho u s e t h at m i g h t i n an y way co n cern

, rel at e t o

, o r i n v o l v e

h i s em p l oy m en t wi t h W affl e Ho u s e, ex cep t wh ere s p eci fi c ex cep t i on s were s et fo rt h

i n t h e ag reem en t. 6 Mo reo v er, e a c h of t h e cl ai m s b ro u g h t b y Pav es i ag ai ns t W affl e

Ho u s e are t o rt cl ai m s

.

T h i s C o u rt h as g i v en b ro ad effect t o s i m il ar l an gu ag e i n o t h er cas es

. In

W ed emeyer v. Gu l

f s t r ea m Aer o s

p a ce Co rp

. , 7 t h i s Co u rt em p has i zed t h at

6 Th e ag reem en t p ro v i d es

, fo r i n s t an ce, t h at cl ai m s fo r wo rk ers ’ co m p en s at i o n

o r u n em p l o y m en t co m

p en s at io n b en efi t s (i n s t at es o t h er t han Tex as ) are n o t s u b ject

t o arb i trat i o n u n d er t he ag reem en t

.

7 3 24 Ga. Ap p

. 4 7

, 5 1 -5 2 (2 ) (7 4 9 SE2 d 2 4 1 ) (2 0 1 3 ) (ci t at i o n

, p u n ct u at i o n

, an d

em ph as i s o m i t t ed ).

11u n d er Geo rg ia l aw, wh ere a co n t ract p ro vi d es t h at a cl ai m m u s t ari se o u t

o f a sp eci fi ed rel at i on s h i p, i t d o es n o t m ean p ro x i m at e cau se i n t h e s t ri ct

l eg al sen s e b ut i n s t ead en co m p as ses al m o s t an y cau s al c o n n e c t i o n o r

rel at io ns h ip

. In d eed

, n o t h i n g m o r e t han a sl i g h t cau s al co n n ect i o n i s

r e q u i red t o s ho w t h at a cl ai m aro s e o u t o f a s p eci fi ed rel at i o n s h i p s e t

fo rt h i n a co n t ract

.

In W ed emeyer

, t h e arb it rat i o n ag reem en t at i s s u e p ro v i ded t hat i t was t o co v er cl ai m s

“ reg ard i n g o r ari s i n g fro m t h e em p lo y m en t rel at i o ns h i p” b et ween t h e p l ai nt i ff an d h i s

t h en -fo rm er em

p l o y er. 3 2 4 Ga. Ap p

. at 5 2

. Th is Co u rt ru l ed t hat

, d u e to t h e b read th

o f th i s l an g u ag e, t h e arb it rat i o n ag reem en t o n l y ex cl ud ed th e em pl o y ee’ s cl ai m s

“ wh i ch d o n ot h av e an y rel at io n s h i p t o an em pl o y ee’ s wo rk o r re l a t i o n s h ip t o ” t h e

em pl o y er. Id

. Becau se t h e em p l o y ee’ s cl ai m s aro se fro m an i n ci d en t th at occu rred

d u ri n g h i s em

p l o y m en t

, th i s Co u rt fo u n d t hat t h ere was a s u ffi ci en t cau s al co n n ect i o n

b et ween s u ch cl ai m s an d h is em p l o y m en t wi t h t h e em

pl o y er. Id

.

Al t h ou g h

, i n t h is cas e, t h e t ri al co u rt s p e c u l at ed t h at t h e at t ack o n M i k ael s

co u ld hav e ju s t as eas i ly b een l o d g ed ag ai n st a W affl e Ho u s e cu s to m er, t h at h ard l y

res o l ves t h e q u es t i o n b efo re u s

. Ev en i f M i k ael s’ em p l o y m en t d o es l i t t l e m o re t h an

ex p lai n wh y

h e was p res en t at t h e W affl e Ho us e p r e m i s e s a t t h e t i m e of t h e at t ack

,

t h e reco rd b efo re us m ak es cl ear t h at t h e at t ack was p erp et rat ed b y a fel l o w em p l o y ee

12wh i le M i k ael s was wo rk in g

. Th o s e fact s

, co m b i n ed wi t h t h e al l eg at i o n t h at th e at t ack

was t he res u l t o f W affl e Ho u se’ s fai led wo rk p l ace s ecu ri t y

effo rt s an d i t s n eg l i g en t

h i ri n g, t ra i n i n g, m an ag em en t

, an d s u p erv is io n o f M ik ael s ’ fel l o w em p l o y ees

es t ab l i s h es t h e “ s l i gh t cau s al co n n ect i on ” b et ween t h e r e l ev an t i n ci d en t

, M i k ael s ’

cl ai m s , an d h i s em

p l o y m en t wi t h W affl e Ho u s e t hat W ed emeyer req u i res

.

Ou r p ri o r d eci s i o n s reg ard i n g t he sco p e o f arb it rab i li t y creat ed b y a g i v en

arb i t rat i on ag reem en t al s o i n st ru ct t hat we are t o res o lv e an y i n t erp ret i v e d o u b t s in

fav o r o f arb i t rat i o n

. As o u r Su p rem e Co urt h as i n d i cat ed

, w i t h reg ard t o th e FAA, “ as

a m at ter o f l a w

, an y d o u b t s co n cern i ng t h e s co p e of arb i t rab l e is s u es s h o u l d b e

res o l ved i n fav o r o f arb i t rat i o n,” i n cl u d i n g w i t h reg ard t o “ t h e co n s t ru ct i o n o f t h e

co n tract lan g u ag e i t s el f.” Di Ma mb r o-No r t h en d A s so c., v. B la n ck-Al va r ez

, In c.

, 2 5 1

Ga. 7 0 4

, 7 0 7 (1 ) (3 0 9 SE2 d 3 6 4 ) (1 98 3 ) (ci t at i o n o m it t ed ). M o reo v er, as t hi s Co u rt

h as prev i o u s l y d i s cu ss ed

, t h ere i s “ a p res u m p ti o n o f arb i t rab i l i t y i n th e s en s e t h at an

o rd er t o arb i t rat e t h e p art i cu l ar g ri ev an ce s h o ul d n ot b e d en i ed u n l es s i t m ay b e s ai d

wi t h p os i t i v e as s u ran ce t h at t h e arb i t rat i o n cl au s e i s n o t s u s cep ti bl e o f an

i n t erp ret at io n th at co vers t h e as s ert ed d i s p u t e. Do u b t s s ho u ld b e res o l v ed in fav o r o f

co v erag e.” Fo rs ee , 2 6 5 Ga. Ap p . at 5 9 1 (ci t at i o n o m i t t ed ).

13B e c a u s e we ag ree w i t h W affl e Ho u s e t h at t h e No v em ber 1 4 arb i t rat i o n

ag reem en t e x p r e s s es th e p art ies ’ i n t en t i on t hat t h e FAA go v ern an y arb i t rat i o n

b et ween th em

, an d becau s e w e fu rt h er ag ree wi t h W affl e Ho u se t h at Mi k ael s’ cl ai m s

fal l wi th i n t h e s co p e o f t h e arb i t rat i o n ag reem en t

, we ho l d t hat t h e tri al co u rt erred in

d en y i n g W affl e Ho u s e’ s m o t i o n t o co m pel arb i t rat i on

. W e t h erefo re rev ers e th e o rd er

o f t h e t ri al co u rt

.

J u d g m e n t r ever s ed

. M cFa d d en

, P. J., co n cu r

s f u l l y in Di vi si on s 1 a n d 3 a n d

s p eci a l l y i n Di vi s i o n 2 . Br a nch , J., co ncu r s

.

14A1 7 A1 28 1 . W A FFLE HOUSE, INC. v . PAVESI.

M C F A D D E N , Pres id i n g J u d g e, co n cu rri n g s p eci al l y

.

I co n cu r i n t h e ju dg m en t an d i n Di v i s i o n s 1 an d 3 o f t h e m ajo ri t y o p in i o n

, b ut

I do n ot ag ree w it h t h e an al y si s i n Di v i si o n 2

. So o u r ru l es d ecl are t h at D i v i s i o n 2 i s

n o t b i n d i n g p reced en t

. Co u rt o f Ap p eal s Ru l e 3 3 (a).

Th e G eo rg i a l aw t h at wo ul d o t h erwi s e ap p l y i s s i d el i n ed b y p reem p ti o n

, n o t by

ch o ice o f l a w

. If we were co n s i d eri n g ch o i ce o f l aw, w e wo u l d n eed t o ad d res s

Geo rg i a p u b li c p ol icy . Bu t we h av e n o ch oi ce.

Th e Geo rg i a Arb i t rat i on Co d e, at “ O CGA § 9

- 9

- 2 ( c) (1 0)[,] ex em p t s fro m

arb i t rat i o n c l ai m s fo r ‘ p ers o n al b o d i l y i n j u ry ’

. . . .” Da vi d

s o n v. A.G. Ed

wa r d s &

S o n s

, 3 24 Ga. A p p. 1 7 2

, 1 7 4 n

. 3 (1 ) (a) (7 48 SE2 d 3 0 0 ) (2 0 1 3 ). So i t i s p reem p t ed

b y th e Fed eral Arb i t rat i o n Act

. “ Th e FAA p reem p t s an y s t at e l aw t hat co n fl i ct s wi thi t s p ro v i s i o n s o r u n d erm i n es th e en fo rcem en t o f p ri vat e arb i t rat io n ag reem en t s .” Id

.

at 1 7 3 (1 ) (a).

If t h e FAA were m erel y a s t at ut e en act ed b y a s i s t er s tat e a n d t h e q u es t i o n

b e f o r e u s w ere t h e en fo rceab il i t y o f a ch o i ce-o f-l aw t erm i n a co n t ract

, we wo u ld

n eed to ad d res s Geo rg i a pu b l i c p o l i cy

. “ Geo rg i a co n fl i ct s o f l aw w i l l n ot fo l l o w a

co n tract ual s el ect i o n o f l aw o f a fo rei g n s t at e wh ere s u c h c h o s en law wo u ld

co n trav en e t h e p u b li c p o l icy o f Geo rg i a

. . . .” H u l ch er S vcs

. v. R. J. Co rma n R. Co

.,

2 4 7 Ga. Ap p

. 4 8 6, 4 8 9 (2 ) (5 4 3 S E2 d 4 6 1 ) (2 0 00 ). See al s o OCGA § 1 -3 -9 (“ Th e

l aws o f ot h er s t at es an d fo rei gn n at i o n s s h al l hav e no fo rce an d effect of t h em s el v es

wi t h i n t h i s s tat e fu rt h er th an i s p ro v i ded b y t h e Co n s t i tu t i o n of th e U n i t ed St at es an d

i s reco g n i zed b y th e co m i t y of s t a t es

. Th e co u rt s s h al l en fo rce t hi s co m i t y

, u n l es s

res t rai n ed b y t h e Gen eral A ss em b l y

, s o l o n g as i t s en fo rcem en t i s n o t co n t rary t o t h e

p o l i cy o r p reju d i ci al t o t h e i n t eres t s o f t hi s s t at e.”); CS -La kevi ew a t Gwi n n et t v.

S i mo n Pr o

p er t y Gr ou p

, 2 8 3 Ga. 4 2 6

, 4 2 8 (6 5 9 SE2 d 3 5 9 ) (2 0 0 8 ) (“ In li g h t o f OCGA

§ 1-3 -9

, t h e l aw o f t h e j u ri s d i ct i o n ch o s en b y p art i es to a co nt ract t o g o v e r n t h ei r

co n tract ual ri g ht s wi l l b e en fo rced u n l es s ap p l i c a t i o n o f t h e ch os en law wo u l d b e

co n trary t o t h e p u b l i c p o l i cy o r p reju d i ci al t o t h e i n t eres t s o f t h i s s t at e.”).

2Bu t as t h e Su p rem e Co u rt o f t h e Un i t ed St at es h as recen tl y rem i n d ed us

, wh en

i t co m es t o arb i trat io n

, s t at e p u b l i c p o l i cy i s o f n o co n s eq u en ce. Un d er t h e Fed eral

Arb it ra t i o n A c t

, a s t at e co u rt ’ s d ecl arat i on “ [i ] n ri n gi n g term s [o f] t h e ju ry ri g h t ’ s

u n s u r p a s s e d s t an d i n g i n t h e St at e Co n s t i t u ti o n ” i s n o m o re t h an a n oi s y g o n g o r a

cl an g i n g cy m

b al

. Ki n d r ed Nu r s i n g Cen t er

s Lt d

. Pa r t n er s h i p v. Cl a rk

,

__ U.S.

_

_ ,

_ _

(II) (A) (1 3 7 SCt 1 4 2 1 , 1 9 7 LE2 d 8 0 6 ) (2 0 17 ).

3