FILE 

IN CLERKS OFFICE 

IUPRS.4F. C()URT, STATE OF WASI•tcmlN 

m;r~~t2~9 CHIEF JUS riCE Ron a . ~upreme Court Clerk 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 

TIMOTHY WEIDERT, individually and 

L.W. WEIDERT FARMS, INC., a 

Washington corporation, 

Respondents, 

v. 

JERALD A. HANSON, d/b/a WALLA 

WALLA INSURANCE SERVICES, and 

JERALD and JANE DOE HANSON, 

husband and wife, 

Defendants, 

PRODUCERS AGRICULTURE 

INSURANCE COMPANY, 

Petitioner. 

NO. 8 8 2 9 3-2 

ENBANC 

Filed: SEP l ~ 2013 

PER CURIAM-A superior court purporting to act in equity refused to 

compel arbitration pursuant to a valid arbitration clause in a federally mandated crop 

insurance contract. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Weidert v. Hanson, 172 Wn. App. 

106, 288 P.3d 1165 (2012). For the reasons discussed below, we grant review and 

reverse. 

Through a private agent, Tim Weidert and L.W. Weidert Farms 

(collectively Weidert) bought a multiperil crop insurance policy for the 2009 crop 

year. The policy was issued by Producers Agriculture Insurance Company and 
No. 88293-2 PAGE2 

reinsured by the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation as established by the Federal 

Crop Insurance Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1501. Policies issued under the federal act are subject 

to federal regulations governing the terms, issuance, and sales of such policies. 

The standard policy issued to Weidert expressly provided that any 

disagreement over a determination made by the insurer was to be resolved through 

arbitration, and that if the insured failed to either initiate arbitration or complete the 

arbitration process, judicial review would not be available. Weidert suffered a loss 

from drought and sued the private insurance agent, alleging that the agent 

misrepresented the amount of insurance coverage available. W eidert had also initiated 

arbitration with Producers Agriculture but failed to complete the process. Weidert 

then amended the complaint to name Producers Agriculture as an additional 

defendant. Weidert' s basic complaint was that Producers Agriculture, after it issued 

its initial estimated amount of insurance coverage available, determined that the 

insured's yields had changed and lowered the amount of coverage available. 

According to W eidert, he overplanted on the basis of the initial information, which he 

claims was negligently provided. 

After W eidert amended the complaint to add Producers Agriculture as a 

defendant, Producers Agriculture moved to compel arbitration under the terms of the 

federal crop insurance policy. Weidert opposed arbitration, arguing that it would 

result in piecemeal litigation of the claims against the insurer and the agent. The 

superior court agreed and refused to compel arbitration. 

The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that a trial court sitting in equity 

may refuse to compel arbitration under an otherwise valid arbitration clause in the 

interest of judicial efficiency. Producers Agriculture petitioned for this court's review. 

An agreement to submit a controversy to arbitration is valid, enforceable, 

and irrevocable "except upon a ground that exists at law or m equity for the 
No. 88293-2 PAGE3 

revocation of a contract." RCW 7.04A.060(1). The Federal Arbitration Act provides 

the same. See 9 U.S.C. § 2 (an agreement in writing to submit a controversy to 

arbitration arising out of a contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce shall 

be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in 

equity for the revocation of any contract). The term "'as exist at law or in equity"' 

refers to general contract defenses such as fraud, duress, or unconscionability, which 

may be applied to invalidate arbitration agreements without violating the federal 

arbitration mandate. Satomi Owners Ass'n v. Satomi, LLC, 167 Wn.2d 781, 813-14, 

225 P.3d 213 (2009) (emphasis omitted) (quoting 9 U.S.C. § 2). Washington law 

provides substantially the same. Saleemi v. Doctor's Assocs., Inc., 176 Wn.2d 368, 

376, 292 P.3d 108 (2013); McKee v. AT&T Corp., 164 Wn.2d 372, 383, 191 P.3d 845 

(2008) (general contract defenses such as unconscionability may invalidate an 

arbitration agreement). There is no support for the notion that a court may ignore an 

otherwise valid arbitration agreement on equitable grounds. 

The arbitration clause here is federally mandated. Crop insurance is 

underwritten by the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation. See 7 C.P.R. § 457.8 

(required insurance policy). The federal regulation specifically requires arbitration of 

disputes arising under the policy. We agree with Producers Agriculture that the 

Federal Arbitration Act prohibits a state court from ignoring a valid federally 

mandated arbitration clause on equitable grounds. 

We therefore grant the petition for review, reverse the Court of Appeals, 

and remand to the superior court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.